[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Here are some good quotes the support divine intervention


Luke 11:9 "So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

John 14:13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 16:23 "In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.

James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

1 John 5:14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.

i imagine the folks at the sago mine asked for god's help in the name of jesus...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i imagine the folks at the sago mine asked for god's help in the name of jesus...

Was that an attempt at flame bait? I think it was.

[ironknee]

no go back and read my last post

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm curious where you're going with this.

The idea is that there is a common moral law among all humans that rears its head even in different, completely disconnected cultures. The existence of a moral law would imply the existence of a moral law-giver, or a god. C.S. Lewis used this argument. Kevin's just asking leading questions to get you there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i imagine the folks at the sago mine asked for god's help in the name of jesus...

Interesting. Society has a tendancy to indict God for His absence in events like the above, but rarely do we celebrate God the other 364 days of the year. It is quite possible that God, in the name of Jesus would be more concerned about our eternal existence than our temporal existence in accordance with the doctrine in which you'll find God, in the name of Jesus. Our prayers do not always align with God's will for us. My mother's death brought our family together in ways unimaginable. God's will? Depends on who you ask I suppose.

One thing's for certain, we're all going to die my friend.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting. Society has a tendancy to indict God for His absence in events like the above, but rarely do we celebrate God the other 364 days of the year. It is quite possible that God, in the name of Jesus would be more concerned about our eternal existence than our temporal existence in accordance with the doctrine in which you'll find God, in the name of Jesus. Our prayers do not always align with God's will for us. My mother's death brought our family together in ways unimaginable. God's will? Depends on who you ask I suppose.

One thing's for certain, we're all going to die my friend.

yes we are all going to die one day and i have no problem dissolving into nothingness

however i was pointing out that though god has intervene in kevin's life (read his posts), god didn't intervene in the sago miners situation.

god is, at best, uneven...

btw sorry to hear about your mom. mine died earlier this year

[Face Ache]

I think people who believe in god(s) are a little nuts.

But then, I'm a Capricorn, so I would think that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What made you feel guilty for reading science books that were marked beyond your age limit?

I guess it was because they were marked as being for people older than me. For all I knew, reading those books was tantamount to fornication. It wasn't entirely rational, but that's what I was getting at: Guilt is an inherently unreasonable and emotional reaction. People can do right and feel bad for it, and they can justify doing the most horrible things to one another.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As far as varying wildly, it seems humans as a whole pretty much come to agreement with MOST things as far as right and wrong. Why?

Because humans all have the same basic needs and desires. The ideas of right and wrong that most people can agree on are basically prescriptive versions of those things. For instance, probably the most universal law is the prohibition against murder — coincidentally, our desires to live and be safe are the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting. Society has a tendancy to indict God for His absence in events like the above, but rarely do we celebrate God the other 364 days of the year. It is quite possible that God, in the name of Jesus would be more concerned about our eternal existence than our temporal existence in accordance with the doctrine in which you'll find God, in the name of Jesus. Our prayers do not always align with God's will for us. My mother's death brought our family together in ways unimaginable. God's will? Depends on who you ask I suppose.

One thing's for certain, we're all going to die my friend.

And here is ebuddy yet again saying things more eloquently and on the spot than I could ever.

But I think most already know this. They use such incidents as flame bait. It's intellectual dishonesty.

They will know the answer already but flame anyhow.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

however i was pointing out that though god has intervene in kevin's life (read his posts), god didn't intervene in the sago miners situation.

god is, at best, uneven...

And ebuddy just eloquently explained that to you. Did you just ignore it?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because humans all have the same basic needs and desires. The ideas of right and wrong that most people can agree on are basically prescriptive versions of those things. For instance, probably the most universal law is the prohibition against murder — coincidentally, our desires to live and be safe are the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

These things existed before Maslow

Maslow may have had ideas that surround such beliefs, But I can't help be think that somewhere, somehow there was a main law, and throughout the ages some of it was changed, and some kept by different cultures.

I also don't find it surprising when societies ignore moral laws, they end up worse off.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

yes we are all going to die one day and i have no problem dissolving into nothingness

I'm glad to hear you're at peace in this.

however i was pointing out that though god has intervene in kevin's life (read his posts), god didn't intervene in the sago miners situation. god is, at best, uneven...

God may very well have intervened at various points in all their lives. I suspect this is why many of them expressed faith even in their final hours, even upon accepting what they felt was their imminent demise. Interesting no?

I often find non-believers to be the ones employing the most "literal" of interpretations. What is intervention in your mind? Does it only regard the immediate subject at only one point in time or can it not manifest in the living at various points in their lives? Is it more humane to die in a mine or of old age in watching each of your loved ones pass? I don't know. In other words, you know God did not intervene because they are no longer living? Is that the standard you apply to a righteous God? One who gives life to all and takes it from all is uneven? I simply find it interesting that we are quick to indict God for His seeming absence, but never as quick to acknowledge Him in His seeming presence.

btw sorry to hear about your mom. mine died earlier this year

Your loss is much more recent than mine. I'm sorry to hear about your loss. I hope this loss serves to bring those around you closer together as it has mine.

[Graviton]

I don't describe myself as an atheist, but other people might, so I'll have a go anyway.

Q: How does it feel to believe there is nothing beyond this material existence?

It's not a case of 'belief' for me, It's a matter of evidence. Natures wonderful and I'm lucky to be alive. So I feel pretty good on the whole. I'm open to evidence for the 'supernatural', but so far it has not been forthcoming and it's looking increasingly unlikely.

As Douglas Adams said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

How does it feel to believe in no force greater than you?

There are lots of forces greater than me. The vast majority of which are utterly beyond my control.

How does it feel to believe there is no greater reward for the righteous or punishment for the wicked?

I do indeed believe that there are rewards for the righteous and punishments for the wicked. Psychological, social and personal rewards/punishments.

How does it feel to believe it's all OVER for you with your bodily demise?

I get very motivated when I think about it. So I like to think about it often.

When it eventually comes I will no doubt feel exactly as I did before I was born.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

It's not a case of 'belief' for me, It's a matter of evidence. Natures wonderful and I'm lucky to be alive. So I feel pretty good on the whole. I'm open to evidence for the 'supernatural', but so far it has not been forthcoming and it's looking increasingly unlikely.

I wouldn't call you a atheist either. More like a doubtful agnostic. I had similar beliefs as you. Not saying you will change yours...

I just had my doubts but was open to being proved wrong.

I still am open to be proved wrong.

[Graviton]

Agnostic, atheist, theist, whatever. I don't mind. I used to think it was important to have a label like that, but I don't anymore. Peoples gods seem to vary so wildly from person to person, it's hard to keep track of precisely what you agree/disagree with.

However, this thread seems to focus on surviving death and I don't have any reason to believe that I'm going to survive death. The evidence doesn't seem to support the idea. My death will be the breakdown and dissipation of the 'stuff' that I am apparently made of. All those atoms and molecules that make up 'me' came from the universe and were assembled by the universe. Before that happened, there was no 'me', just lots of atoms and molecules that would one day become 'me' (all busy doing other things and constituting other things). So, I imagine that when these constituent parts are all disassembled again and redistributed throughout nature to form other things, then that will be the end of 'me'.

For this reason, I think it's probably best if I live my life as if I won't survive death, but I'll hope for the best anyway.

[Kevin]

Your body will 100% for fact, not survive death.

[Graviton]

You sir have clearly not heard of George A Romero

[tmpilling]

I just love this thread by the way!

Q: How does it feel to believe there is nothing beyond this material existence?
>>>>>>> Comforting to know that when I'm gone, all the happiness and torment that I have felt at one time or another with reach equilibrium.

How does it feel to believe in no force greater than you?
>>>>>>> I don't think anyone has suggested that there is no greater force than themself.

How does it feel to believe there is no greater reward for the righteous or punishment for the wicked?
>>>>>>> The wicked are punished everyday of their lives IMHO, they have to live with themselves. And the ones who "repent" their sins on their death beads get off lightly don't you think?

How does it feel to believe it's all OVER for you with your bodily demise?
>>>>>>> When I'm asleep or unconcious for another reason, it feels great, so I'm anticipating (hopefully not finding out too soon though, I haven't seen the Galopogas Islands yet) that it'll be similar... Cause I can't remember what it feels like to be asleep!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm glad to hear you're at peace in this.


God may very well have intervened at various points in all their lives. I suspect this is why many of them expressed faith even in their final hours, even upon accepting what they felt was their imminent demise. Interesting no?

I often find non-believers to be the ones employing the most "literal" of interpretations. What is intervention in your mind? Does it only regard the immediate subject at only one point in time or can it not manifest in the living at various points in their lives? Is it more humane to die in a mine or of old age in watching each of your loved ones pass? I don't know. In other words, you know God did not intervene because they are no longer living? Is that the standard you apply to a righteous God? One who gives life to all and takes it from all is uneven? I simply find it interesting that we are quick to indict God for His seeming absence, but never as quick to acknowledge Him in His seeming presence.

ok so maybe the miners and their families did get their prayers answered but not in a literal way...ie no old age etc... and maybe it makes sense from god's point of view...but remember the families hearing all but one are alive first then they found out it was the opposite. to them it seemed unfair and i remember seeing one family member questioning the existance of god on tv...

on the other hand, kevin seens to have been "touched" by god in a more apparent way as he claims...this is my point. why some and not others?

this just strikes me as random and making excuses.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok so maybe the miners and their families did get their prayers answered but not in a literal way...ie no old age etc... and maybe it makes sense from god's point of view...but remember the families hearing all but one are alive first then they found out it was the opposite. to them it seemed unfair and i remember seeing one family member questioning the existance of god on tv...

Pretty excruciating no doubt. I couldn't even begin to imagine. I will say that by far the most difficult concept for me as a professed Christian is "loving people". The people who were quick with the misinformation were interested in nothing more than being the one with the scoop.

on the other hand, kevin seens to have been "touched" by god in a more apparent way as he claims...this is my point. why some and not others?

this just strikes me as random and making excuses.

I can understand this, but this goes back to my point about non-believers often being very literal. By "touching"; if one means God should come and part the seas then... no, probably not. However, it is equally plausible to me that few have stopped to smell the roses so to speak. Christians refer to this as the "still quiet voice of God". We may not notice, we may not believe it is He, we may be too distracted, and we may be taking things for granted overall.

Let's say for example I've decided to hold the door for my wife, but she was distracted by something the neighbor said and didn't acknowledge the door had been held for her. In a sense, I've reached out to her in showing love, but she was too distracted to notice. Now let's say I hold the door for her several times a day and she's grown so accustomed to it that she has begun to take this for granted, expecting the door to simply be held open. She may even be quick to question my love if at any point I failed to hold the door for her. This is why it may often seem like "excuses" or "making it up as it goes along". This relationship is always contingent upon the perspective of the subject, the person. This, according to Christian doctrine, is as it should be. Accepting this notion is entirely up to you.

[Graviton]

Maybe the miners died because mining is a dangerous business and stuff like that happens sometimes.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Maybe the miners died because mining is a dangerous business and stuff like that happens sometimes.

How dare you bring facts into this?

[turntabletux]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I don't describe myself as an atheist, but other people might, so I'll have a go anyway.



It's not a case of 'belief' for me, It's a matter of evidence. Natures wonderful and I'm lucky to be alive. So I feel pretty good on the whole. I'm open to evidence for the 'supernatural', but so far it has not been forthcoming and it's looking increasingly unlikely.

As Douglas Adams said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"



There are lots of forces greater than me. The vast majority of which are utterly beyond my control.



I do indeed believe that there are rewards for the righteous and punishments for the wicked. Psychological, social and personal rewards/punishments.



I get very motivated when I think about it. So I like to think about it often.

When it eventually comes I will no doubt feel exactly as I did before I was born.

I feel exactly the same on each subject you covered!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Maybe the miners died because mining is a dangerous business and stuff like that happens sometimes.

Well that stuff comes from fossil fuels. And we all know fossil fuels comes from the bones of Dinosaurs that were put here by Satan. That is why they died. They went mining for Satan.

Yes, that was a joke at my own expense. But seriously, the bible doesn't say either way about dinosaurs or not. It was irrelevant to the story. And the only people that discuss it as if it matters are insecure Christians and Atheists.

[Dakarʒ]

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

mining for Satan.

Didn't they support Cradle of Filth on their last tour?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Pretty excruciating no doubt. I couldn't even begin to imagine. I will say that by far the most difficult concept for me as a professed Christian is "loving people". The people who were quick with the misinformation were interested in nothing more than being the one with the scoop.


I can understand this, but this goes back to my point about non-believers often being very literal. By "touching"; if one means God should come and part the seas then... no, probably not. However, it is equally plausible to me that few have stopped to smell the roses so to speak. Christians refer to this as the "still quiet voice of God". We may not notice, we may not believe it is He, we may be too distracted, and we may be taking things for granted overall.

Let's say for example I've decided to hold the door for my wife, but she was distracted by something the neighbor said and didn't acknowledge the door had been held for her. In a sense, I've reached out to her in showing love, but she was too distracted to notice. Now let's say I hold the door for her several times a day and she's grown so accustomed to it that she has begun to take this for granted, expecting the door to simply be held open. She may even be quick to question my love if at any point I failed to hold the door for her. This is why it may often seem like "excuses" or "making it up as it goes along". This relationship is always contingent upon the perspective of the subject, the person. This, according to Christian doctrine, is as it should be. Accepting this notion is entirely up to you.

i understand what you are saying and i respect that.

bust isn't that true for any belief system? (ie up to the person's acceptance?)

and the seeing the glass half full thinking can exist without the need for a god?

and the randomness of things is imo, the very reason people need a god

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

bust isn't that true for any belief system? (ie up to the person's acceptance?)

Absolutely, as with any philosophy, opinion, perception, or action in general.

and the seeing the glass half full thinking can exist without the need for a god?

Yes, optimism is entirely up to the disposition of the subject, often times contingent upon the circumstances in which they find themselves. Just as some have found power in non-belief, many have found power in belief.

and the randomness of things is imo, the very reason people need a god

Interestingly, "randomness" itself is also subject to perception imo; not unlike the "glass half-full" or "half-empty" notion you provided earlier. Do we view our nature as "mostly chaotic" or "mostly ordered"? IMO, science has enjoyed so much merit because of the remarkable order of nature and the measurable qualities we find in it. Still, randomness seems to remain a curiosity to the most diligent of students. To your point; if randomness is viewed as a "problem" or as negative in general a need may follow.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interestingly, "randomness" itself is also subject to perception imo; not unlike the "glass half-full" or "half-empty" notion you provided earlier. Do we view our nature as "mostly chaotic" or "mostly ordered"? IMO, science has enjoyed so much merit because of the remarkable order of nature and the measurable qualities we find in it. Still, randomness seems to remain a curiosity to the most diligent of students. To your point; if randomness is viewed as a "problem" or as negative in general a need may follow.

by randomness, i mean so and so who was young died the other day, so and so got lung cancer and she didn't even smoke and so on

and yes i agree with the science...."mesurable" is the key word....

i guess to make the point christianity is a tough religion to believe in from my point of view because it does not offer objective proof that it's "better" than the baseline of sh!t happens even to good people (why do bad things happen to good people?)

it requires faith (of course) but faith is subjective, no?

we got off on the wrong foot for some reason but let's not fight anymore

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

by randomness, i mean so and so who was young died the other day, so and so got lung cancer and she didn't even smoke and so on

and yes i agree with the science...."mesurable" is the key word....

i guess to make the point christianity is a tough religion to believe in from my point of view because it does not offer objective proof that it's "better" than the baseline of sh!t happens even to good people (why do bad things happen to good people?)

Without a doubt, "sh!t happens to good people." I remembered you had mentioned that God seemed uneven in His judgment or unfair in His nature, but believing Christians view this differently. For example,

Ecclesiastes 9:11; "... the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." I submit it would be unfair any other way. To believing Christians there is good news.

John 16:33; "... These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world." Those who experience oppression, poverty, illness, and atrocity more regularly such as those in third world conditions for example, often view suffering in a much different manner than you and I. Often times for these faithful, suffering is an opportunity to show faith. This degree of faith under those circumstances often bolsters the faith of those around the subject. The book of Job gives a good illustration of faith through suffering.

Christians believe these "tribulations" (by definition, trials through distress) try our faith. Christians refer to this as a "spiritual battle" or "refining fires". ("spiritual" by definition is akin to interests, attitudes, and outlook as "refining" is akin to purification) While the enemy may use suffering to diminish faith, God can use suffering to bolster it. In addition, had you built a shelter with the intention of housing your family, you would need to know that you could trust it. You'd need to know that it could withstand in-climate weather. To your point...

it requires faith (of course) but faith is subjective, no?

Absolutely. This, in accordance with freewill. If God were any more intrusive (or objectively evident) in the lives of men, we would not have freewill. We choose to accept or deny such a battle or God exists. We may use suffering to diminish our faith or we may view suffering in a different way, bolstering our faith. All entirely contingent upon our own perspectives and dispositions.

we got off on the wrong foot for some reason but let's not fight anymore

I hope I've not come off as argumentative ironknee. It's hard to seem diplomatic in the written word. I'm truly just expressing my perspective as you have expressed yours.

[Graviton]

I've never bought the "Christianity is wrong because bad things happen" argument (also known as "the problem of evil"). I think It's a bad argument and it's not why I'm not a Christian.

I think Christianity is wrong because I don't believe a god-man was born of a virgin, cast a whole bunch of physics defying miracles, came back from the dead and then flew off to heaven. That sounds implausible to me. I don't think that sort of thing can happen. It just doesn't jive with my experience of reality. I have similar objections to Mohammed's fantastically embellished story.

As for the more general non-religious god thing. Well, maybe god doesn't care, or even know you are there. Or maybe a god is not the kind of thing that can know you are there. Maybe it doesn't have the capacity to think. On the other hand maybe it does know about us but It's pernicious and cruel like the old gods (and the old testament god). Or maybe a god does not exist at all. Imagine that! Or maybe one does and a few people trapped down a mine isn't really a big deal for it. Maybe it has a bigger plan and we are too stupid or insignificant to realise. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Pick an idea and make a wish, just like everybody else.

It's all speculative nonsense. Fun nonsense. Interesting nonsense. But nonsense none the less, because no bugger really has any clue what they are talking about when it comes to god. If you were to just invent a god now, give it some attributes (traditionally ones that reflect more perfect versions of your own) then you'll have as much authority to speak about god as the Bible authors, the Quaran authors, the pope, your pastor, or anyone else in the world.

Seriously, it really is as crazy as it sounds.

[OldManMac]

But nonsense none the less

The most appropriate, and correct, summation yet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I've never bought the "Christianity is wrong because bad things happen" argument (also known as "the problem of evil"). I think It's a bad argument and it's not why I'm not a Christian.

I think Christianity is wrong because I don't believe a god-man was born of a virgin, cast a whole bunch of physics defying miracles, came back from the dead and then flew off to heaven. That sounds implausible to me. I don't think that sort of thing can happen. It just doesn't jive with my experience of reality. I have similar objections to Mohammed's fantastically embellished story.

As for the more general non-religious god thing. Well, maybe god doesn't care, or even know you are there. Or maybe a god is not the kind of thing that can know you are there. Maybe it doesn't have the capacity to think. On the other hand maybe it does know about us but It's pernicious and cruel like the old gods (and the old testament god). Or maybe a god does not exist at all. Imagine that! Or maybe one does and a few people trapped down a mine isn't really a big deal for it. Maybe it has a bigger plan and we are too stupid or insignificant to realise. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Pick an idea and make a wish, just like everybody else.

It's all speculative nonsense. Fun nonsense. Interesting nonsense. But nonsense none the less, because no bugger really has any clue what they are talking about when it comes to god. If you were to just invent a god now, give it some attributes (traditionally ones that reflect more perfect versions of your own) then you'll have as much authority to speak about god as the Bible authors, the Quaran authors, the pope, your pastor, or anyone else in the world.

Seriously, it really is as crazy as it sounds.

The New Testament;
No doubt about it, by far the most difficult concept to accept is one that lacks empirical evidence. Manuscript authority exists to affirm the historical reliability of the New Testament and by number of manuscripts alone, Homer's Iliad is a distant second. It is said that you may In fact combine any 10 pieces of classical literature and you will not equal the historical reliability of the New Testament. Of course, this does not address the supernatural problem nor does it mean that historical text can be known with certainty to be 100% true.

Jesus as a man;
By any measurement I've read, the historicity of Jesus' existence and of the New Testament accounts of His existence in relation to the events of that time are extremely well-founded. The number of eye-witness accounts including those hostile to his philosophy have affirmed His existence. If it weren't for the alleged "deity" of Jesus, there would be no problem in affirming Jesus' existence as a man. One noteworthy historian (Wil Durant) has written; "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels". In light of these evidences and given the fact that we have no empirical, scientific for Caesar's existence, the existence of Jesus as a man is at least plausible. Here again, this is no solution to the supernatural problem and nothing is 100% certain.

Another historian, Philip Schaff wrote; "This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science...he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times."

Diligent students of Scripture also learn more about the numerical phenomena found in the text itself, the languages, culture, and incredible influence of this concept. I would argue that the concept of Christianity and its central figure is more than speculative, the historicity and complexity of the text is more than that of an active imagination, and the influence of this concept on society is beyond refutation.

Crazy? Maybe, but then... at the end of the day we're all reading something that requires belief or disbelief.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No doubt about it, by far the most difficult concept to accept is one that lacks empirical evidence.

You can say that again.

Religious claims are given more credence than other supernatural claims. They are established and ingrained in certain cultures, therefore they have an air of respectability that any newer (but equally lacking in empirical evidence) supernatural claims are not afforded. They are also old, and people find the past to be mysterious. As if magic happened all the time then but god (or whatever) got a bit shy when things like video cameras and modern science were invented.

It's a very curious situation.

Crazy? Maybe, but then... at the end of the day we're all reading something that requires belief or disbelief.

Absolutely.

Be it praying to Mecca 5 times a day, asking Jesus for forgiveness, or squeezing a goats testicle and asking the great JuJu in the sky to make it rain. People pick their story, make a wish, and enjoy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Be it praying to Mecca 5 times a day, asking Jesus for forgiveness, or squeezing a goats testicle and asking the great JuJu in the sky to make it rain. People pick their story, make a wish, and enjoy.

I don't think you'd have to stop at squeezing goats testicles. Other items we accept and enjoy without empirical evidence;
- morality
- love
- intuition
- logic
- reason

Logic and reason alone defy the laws of nature and have no empirical evidence. No matter what the discipline, there will always be ambiguities. While faith in a God without empirical evidence may be crazy, an a priori rejection of the supernatural imo, is intellectually lazy.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I hope I've not come off as argumentative ironknee. It's hard to seem diplomatic in the written word. I'm truly just expressing my perspective as you have expressed yours.

same here sorry for any disrespect ...i've enjoyed this mature dialogue....

oh and kevin, i am reaching out to you too...it may not be as fun but what if we stop fighting?

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think you'd have to stop at squeezing goats testicles. Other items we accept and enjoy without empirical evidence;
- morality
- love
- intuition
- logic
- reason

I think the field of neuroscience may disagree with your claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such thoughts/emotions and the location of the brain activity associated with them.

Logic and reason alone defy the laws of nature and have no empirical evidence. No matter what the discipline, there will always be ambiguities. While faith in a God without empirical evidence may be crazy, an a priori rejection of the supernatural imo, is intellectually lazy.

Logic and reason fall well within the evolutionary framework of phenotypes creating patterns to navigate their environment. They by no means "defy the laws of nature". Not by a long shot.

As for your "intellectually lazy" barb, well, those who accept certain supernatural claims over others are merely selective about what they do and do not care to be intellectually rigourous about. I prefer to keep an open mind about it all, but id rather not pick one mythological/supernatural story, claim it as 'true' and then question all the others with more fervour than I question my own. Not when the 'evidence' for them all is equally valid. Which it is by the way. Hence the reliance on 'faith'.

Still, other people are welcome to believe whatever the hell they like. I wish them all a happy life.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

These thoughts/emotions may not be rational (or even irrational, they could be a-rational), however that's a completely different argument to whether they are empirical (as in, having evidence for their existence). For example, something like 'faith' can be shown to exist (both electro-chemically and as an intellectual concept), but that does not mean what you have faith in is then proven to exist. By confusing these two issues your argument is in danger of disappearing down the road to solipsism.

I might not have been clear enough. I'm not trying to convert you to my belief. I respect your non-belief and am not here proselytizing my faith to you. I'm not citing those phenomena to prove my God exists. I'm using them to indicate that an a priori rejection of the supernatural is hasty and may illustrate an aversion to a concept rather than an interest in any intellectual pursuit and to expose the difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy. (if dogma, no less reprehensible than any other religion)

If we are to assume the universe exists (which by having breakfast this morning I have chosen to do) then logic and reason fall well within the evolutionary framework of phenotypes creating patterns to navigate their environment.

With as cutting-edge as this realm of science remains and the fact that we've done little more than observe this phenomena, I think it is both optimistic and circular to retrofit your notion by saying simply; "as surely as the universe exists, logic and reason fall 'well' within the evolutionary framework of phenotypes navigating their environment." I'd add that this is entirely subjective as there is no predictive model on how logic and reason will manifest in the individual conscious. If I told you simply; "God did it", you'd likely ask "how?".

No neuroscientist in the world claims that 'thought' or 'emotion' in any way breaks our current understanding of physics. Neuroscience is indeed empirical, as the result of a lobotomy on ones mental capacity will attest to.

When was the last lobotomy performed in the US Graviton? Also, I'm curious about your statement; "Neuroscience is indeed empirical, as the result of a lobotomy on ones mental capacity will attest to." Can you elaborate on what this means exactly? I'm most curious about your use of "mental capacity" in this context. Brain surgery is declining in practice and while it has enjoyed some moderate success in controlling epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, and some of the most extreme cases of depression (basically removing a significant portion of "mental capacity" in general, not unlike using a MOAB on an anthill), it is intellectually dishonest to make any such claim with even a modicum of certainty.

As for your "intellectually lazy" barb, well, I would argue that those who accept certain supernatural claims over others are in fact the ones who selectively choose what they would or would not like to be intellectually rigourous about. No doubt they do this for emotional reasons.

On the contrary, it seems you've employed a straw-man of sorts here and I'll let you decide if this is the product of your own emotional bias. I'm not suggesting that an acceptance of one concept necessitates rejection of another. I rather think the natural and supernatural act in beautiful harmony and I welcome the discipline of science in such discussions regarding the natural as I welcome the intellectual pursuit of the supernatural. I've been intellectually "rigorous" regarding a great many concepts both natural and supernatural that have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God.

I prefer to keep an open mind and I await to see any evidence in support of gods or monsters. Till then it seems odd for me to pick a mythical story that I simply happen to like (or that happens to be the most dominant in my culture) and just go with that. I could do that, but I doubt I would be able to trick myself into believing it.

I'd say for a naturalist, no amount of evidence could satisfy the dogmatic presupposition, but overall I was pleased to see this last statement. I recalled the term "crazy" being used which you understand does not wreak of open-mindedness. IMO, there was little prior to suggest that your mind was open. Considering that a great many of the "quacks" of history believed nature was measurable because of an "intelligible/creator/god" having authored the sciences we now revere and that per Nature 40% of scientists believe in a deity, it seemed to me that you were simply adhering to another faith.

But that's just me. You can do what you want man.

Of course I appreciate your tolerance.

[Graviton]

Ouch. I edited my post to really cut it down (sometimes I say more than needs to be said) but I'll read what you have written and respond to it.

[Graviton]

Right, lots to pick through there, but for brevity I'll get to the meat.

I respect your non-belief and am not here proselytizing my faith to you

That's OK, I never thought you were. I'm sceptical about the supernatural, I have no reason to believe in the fantastical aspects of the Christ myth (and other supernatural claims), but I'm not trying to convert you either. We are just talking here.

I'm using them to indicate that an a priori rejection of the supernatural is hasty and may illustrate an aversion to a concept rather than an interest in any intellectual pursuit and to expose the difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy.

Well, I for one do not a priori reject the supernatural. I await any evidence for it and will gladly look at it. I also do not a priori accept the supernatural and have no reason to choose one supernatural claim over another.

I guess that makes me a naturalist by default, but there's really nothing I can do about that for now. I suspect a lot of naturalists feel that way.

With as cutting-edge as this realm of science remains and the fact that we've done little more than observe this phenomena

Not just observed, but hypothesised, made predictions, tested those predictions, then formed theories which will in turn be constantly tested.

For this reason I personally find science much more nourishing than religion and far more reliable than revelation (which has the unfortunate property of being indistinguishable from fantasy), but this is not to say the scientific method is perfect and that eventually we will know everything through it. I don't subscribe to scientism.

Likewise, one has to be careful of positing the supernatural wherever science has yet to tread. It has a habit of being rooted out, which is why most sophisticated theologians reject 'god of the gaps' theology.

per Nature 40% of scientists believe in a deity

When The National Academy of Sciences were recently surveyed about the existence of a "personal god" only 7% replied yes. That's the complete opposite to what polls say about the general population.

You have to be careful with statistics like this. A lot of the 'gods' that scientists say they believe in are not recognisable to most religious peoples orthodox idea of what a 'god' is (a supernatural and personal being that acknowledges their existence or maybe even cares about it). Physicists are always referring to natural phenomena as 'god'. Einstein and Hawking have been notorious for it, but their 'god' describes something that most theologians would reject and most naturalists could happily subscribe to, even if they don't see the need to confuse people by referring to it as 'god'.

More importantly, what a scientist 'believes' is actually irrelevant, it's the evidence that really counts. He may believe his chosen football team is the best team in the world, but the actual evidence of their match win ratio may not actually support that hypothesis. Peer review would butcher him alive, regardless of his emotional attachment to that idea.

I do not call myself an atheist either, by the way, because one persons god is sometimes just a warm feeling that they have inside when walking through an autumn wood. I don't have any reason to question the existence of that. I don't think the 'existence of god' question should be a heavy question at all. It certainly shouldn't be something that troubles people or causes them any distress.

I'm curious about your statement; "Neuroscience is indeed empirical, as the result of a lobotomy on ones mental capacity will attest to." Can you elaborate on what this means exactly?

What I mean is that certain brain regions accord with certain thoughts and the manipulation of these brain regions (through chemistry, surgery, illness or accident) changes the ability to have certain thoughts. Thus showing a strong connection between physical brain activity and the experience of having a thought. 'Empathy' for example can be surgically or chemically removed and emotions like 'love' or 'religious experience' can also be chemically or surgically activated.

These are known regions of the brain and are empirically testable phenomena. Neuroscience has done a lot of work in this area. If you have the time, it makes for very interesting reading.

I recalled the term "crazy" being used which you understand does not wreak of open-mindedness. IMO, there was little prior to suggest that your mind was open.

That was just colloquial banter. I don't actually believe that people who have faith in the supernatural are crazy. I meant 'crazy' as in our ideas about certain things may not be necessarily rational (not that we are 'out of our minds') and only in the sense that we are all a little crazy (not always rational).

It wasn't meant as a judgement call or to be used negatively and it was not specifically aimed at 'believers'. I just talk casually sometimes and I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

Of course I appreciate your tolerance.

Oh I sincerely meant that. I'm not a 'thought fascist', I just disagree with some of your ideas. People can believe whatever the hell they like, I'm cool with that and I really do have an ear for all ideas, because that's just what they are, ideas, some with more evidence to support them than others, but It's not like either of us would be silly enough to claim them them as absolute truth .... is it?

[SpencerLavery]

Believing in God > everything else.

That's the point of this thread isn't it? I don't see any real open-minded discussion going on here at all.

[sidenote - I'm buddhist]

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think you'd have to stop at squeezing goats testicles. Other items we accept and enjoy without empirical evidence;
- morality
- love
- intuition
- logic
- reason

Logic and reason alone defy the laws of nature and have no empirical evidence. No matter what the discipline, there will always be ambiguities. While faith in a God without empirical evidence may be crazy, an a priori rejection of the supernatural imo, is intellectually lazy.

sigh....

If you stuff enough nonsense into one post, you make responding to it completely daunting.

To pick one: love is empirically evident. To love something is to value something. That people value/love is empirically evident in their behaviour.

To pick another: logic is empirically evident in the non-contradiction of nature. It is empirically evident that contradictions cannot exist.

I'd comment on the other dozen or so glaring absurdities in your post, but I guess I'm just intellectually lazy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think you'd have to stop at squeezing goats testicles. Other items we accept and enjoy without empirical evidence;
- morality
- love
- intuition
- logic
- reason

I have empirical evidence for all of these things. As these are all just ideas, all I have to do is see someone write about them and that is pretty much proof positive that the idea exists.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

sigh....

If you stuff enough nonsense into one post, you make responding to it completely daunting.

I'm sorry you feel it is nonsense. After all, it is a philosophical discussion.

To pick one: love is empirically evident. To love something is to value something. That people value/love is empirically evident in their behaviour.

Love as ascribed upon another or love in serving ourselves through it? Is Love measurable? Can you predict how one might react to circumstances while in love? What is it we observe about love? Can it not contradict or do we merely say this contradiction is observed nature and therefore, non-contradictory?

To pick another: logic is empirically evident in the non-contradiction of nature. It is empirically evident that contradictions cannot exist.

Interestingly, non-contradiction can only be claimed as it is observed. If it is observed, it becomes a part of the non-contradictory. Something can of course; be both A and B and A and not-A. This is merely our observance of nature itself and not a measurement of our observance. For example, there are a host of problems in considering the Law of Identity itself. If you were to ask me what a dog was and I replied; "a dog is a dog", you would likely consider this a woefully inadequate answer. Really, what we observe is dynamic not unlike a subatomic particle. Is one dollar, one dollar? Formal logic is not empirical. Worse, if it were-we could never observe a new experience. Which of course, was the only point I was trying to make. You can call this absurd and nonsensical if that helps put things in a simpler, black-and-white context for ya.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I have empirical evidence for all of these things. As these are all just ideas, all I have to do is see someone write about them and that is pretty much proof positive that the idea exists.

... based on arbitrary definitions and subjective experience. Notwithstanding, these ideas are considerations of formal logic, which is not empirical.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

For this reason I personally find science much more nourishing than religion and far more reliable than revelation (which has the unfortunate property of being indistinguishable from fantasy), but this is not to say the scientific method is perfect and that eventually we will know everything through it. I don't subscribe to scientism.

There are nourishing aspects to both imo. I can appreciate the tangible nature of science as well as the intellectual pursuits of faith. This may be one reason for my frustration at many Christians who've all, but entirely divorced themselves of science. It shows a lacking capacity for both and an assertion made with blatant disregard for the viewpoints of others. That said, I was primarily taking issue with your use of the term "crazy" in reference to faith.

Likewise, one has to be careful of positing the supernatural wherever science has yet to tread. It has a habit of being rooted out, which is why most sophisticated theologians reject 'god of the gaps' theology.

I wholeheartedly agree and personally do not subscribe to any notions that retrofit God or many gods to fill gaps in science. Science will work to fill any gaps as they always do contrary to what we may read in National Geographic. A scientists says; "maybe" and "likely", the general public says "is". This is compartmentalization of the highest order and all are guilty at some point.

When The National Academy of Sciences were recently surveyed about the existence of a "personal god" only 7% replied yes. That's the complete opposite to what polls say about the general population.

Polling the general population is a complex affair and I'll get to that in a minute. It should be noted that half of those polled in the NAS, responded. Is this a matter of who is more opinionated? For example;
- Belief in the devil has increased by 8% since 1997 yet belief in God has remained the same. How could this be? God is not termed "God of Abraham", "God of the Bible", or "miracle working with angels" so as always some qualification is necessary. Also, "personal god" begs many questions. If you believe in any Creator at all, you believe in the Supernatural. When asked of the scientific community more broadly;"god", the answers are much more affirmative in belief in the supernatural. It looks less like 7%, becomes 40% with 45% affirming no belief at all in a god.

You have to be careful with statistics like this. A lot of the 'gods' that scientists say they believe in are not recognizable to most religious peoples orthodox idea of what a 'god' is (a supernatural and personal being that acknowledges their existence or maybe even cares about it). Physicists are always referring to natural phenomena as 'god'. Einstein and Hawking have been notorious for it, but their 'god' describes something that most theologians would reject and most naturalists could happily subscribe to, even if they don't see the need to confuse people by referring to it as 'god'.

I completely agree. In fact, it could be argued that the "god" referred to by scientists is the same "god" the general public refers to and neither would be accepted by most theologians. 37% practice their "faith" regularly and many less believe in miracles, heaven, angels, and hell than in "God". "Personal God" changes things a bit and may elicit the responses of those more opinionated as is what you'll find in society as a whole.

I do not call myself an atheist either, by the way, because one persons god is sometimes just a warm feeling that they have inside when walking through an autumn wood. I don't have any reason to question the existence of that. I don't think the 'existence of god' question should be a heavy question at all. It certainly shouldn't be something that troubles people or causes them any distress.

I'm glad you feel this way. I will say there probably would've been no conversation at all had it been presented this way to begin with.

What I mean is that certain brain regions accord with certain thoughts and the manipulation of these brain regions (through chemistry, surgery, illness or accident) changes the ability to have certain thoughts. Thus showing a strong connection between physical brain activity and the experience of having a thought. 'Empathy' for example can be surgically or chemically removed and emotions like 'love' or 'religious experience' can also be chemically or surgically activated.

I agree in part, but take issue with the more optimistic of your assertions above. Yes, empathy exists as an emotion yet is not measurable, is not capable of isolation, nor removal. Yes, this emotion and others are found to originate in the brain as opposed to say... the heart, lungs, or other organs, but "empathy" cannot be isolated nor removed. Like I said, the history of brain surgery with regard to emotion and the control thereof; have been nothing more than using an A-bomb on an anthill. The affects of any intrusive brain surgery are not predictable as any waiver prior to such a surgery would suggest. When your money is where your mouth is, the intrinsic human limitations are more apparent.

These are known regions of the brain and are empirically testable phenomena. Neuroscience has done a lot of work in this area. If you have the time, it makes for very interesting reading.

I've done a wealth of reading and it is fascinating stuff. I have this knack for being as intrigued by what we do not know and the future of the work as I am any assertion made by the populace today.

That was just colloquial banter. I don't actually believe that people who have faith in the supernatural are crazy. I meant 'crazy' as in our ideas about certain things may not be necessarily rational (not that we are 'out of our minds') and only in the sense that we are all a little crazy (not always rational).

I got'cha. I misunderstood your use of the term "crazy".

Oh I sincerely meant that. I'm not a 'thought fascist', I just disagree with some of your ideas. People can believe whatever the hell they like, I'm cool with that and I really do have an ear for all ideas, because that's just what they are, ideas, some with more evidence to support them than others, but It's not like either of us would be silly enough to claim them them as absolute truth .... is it?

While I may believe in absolute truth, I do not go out in seeking to "change" others' hearts and minds. For example; I believe the man "Jesus" existed. I believe this Jesus claimed to be God or in the least, the way to God. With this, I will accept one of two possibilities. Either Jesus was sane and honest or Jesus was insane and heretical. I do not believe a man who claimed to be of God, with no apparent, immediate gain went to His grave because of a claim of deity in direct contradiction to a faith He was not only raised unto, but revered and knew well; Judaism.

There are many arguments such as Jesus never existed. There was no Jesus of Nazareth in reference to many potential "Jesus'". That He never claimed to be God. That He was not crucified. There are questions regarding the various papyri and the integrity of such critiqued exhaustively, etc... Someone who is resolved one way or the other will filter any evidences through presupposition. While there may be absolute truth, we may not be aware enough to know not unlike the thousands of unsolved crimes that occur on a daily basis. This will happen with Christians as well of course. There are perfectly reasonable explanations of the Roswell incident for example, but some would never be convinced. There are those believe 9/11 was entirely an inside job and contrary to any evidences either way, will not be convinced. I maintain that if God were to come down and claim with a loud thunderous voice that I AM GOD, we'd swear we were collectively drugged including many that profess to believe.

If and when someone is willing and/or able to put any presuppositions away-they may ask me and I can seize the educational moment to inform. At the end of the day, that is all we can do one way or the other. I will never claim I have the absolute truth even if I believe it exists. I'd have to know that I actually believe what I see or what I read. I don't think any one of us are 100% convinced of anything. This is the human limitation that begs humility and open-mindedness.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... based on arbitrary definitions and subjective experience. Notwithstanding, these ideas are considerations of formal logic, which is not empirical.

Formal logic is not empirical, no. You can feed formal logic complete garbage for information and you'll get garbage out. I'm not quite seeing how this is relevant.

[Graviton]

I agree in part, but take issue with the more optimistic of your assertions above. Yes, empathy exists as an emotion yet is not measurable, is not capable of isolation, nor removal. Yes, this emotion and others are found to originate in the brain as opposed to say... the heart, lungs, or other organs, but "empathy" cannot be isolated nor removed. Like I said, the history of brain surgery with regard to emotion and the control thereof; have been nothing more than using an A-bomb on an anthill. The affects of any intrusive brain surgery are not predictable as any waiver prior to such a surgery would suggest. When your money is where your mouth is, the intrinsic human limitations are more apparent.

I think you probably need to read more modern neuroscience literature to get up to speed. I'd recommend Stephen Pinker for a good primer on experimental psychology and cognitive science. "How the mind works" is pretty good if your interested.

While I may believe in absolute truth, I do not go out in seeking to "change" others' hearts and minds. For example; I believe the man "Jesus" existed. I believe this Jesus claimed to be God or in the least, the way to God. With this, I will accept one of two possibilities. Either Jesus was sane and honest or Jesus was insane and heretical. .

Yeah, this is where we part ways. I can see what you choose to accept and what you don't choose to accept and the story your sticking with. It's all a little reminiscent of SC Lewis and his "lord, liar or lunatic" argument, which I don't think is a very good one because it only works by excluding the available (and I think more likely) options that the myth was tagged onto the mans life after his death (or that he is in fact an invention for the most part). As you alluded to in your post.

I too think that some of message was pretty cool, like the Buddha's message (which I think is even better) but even if Jesus the man did exist, and he claimed he was god (or the way to god) I doubt that he knew anymore than you or I do on the existence or properties of god. Or anyone else for that matter.

However, this is no doubt an unresolvable disagreement between us, but It's been nice talking to you and thank you for your time.

Our revels have now ended!

[Big Mac]

Interesting, very interesting.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Interesting, very interesting.

Yes, it is. For those who are so inclined, which I suspect would be few here, one might also want to read god is not Great (How religion poisons everything), by Christopher Hitchens. It does a wonderful job of dissecting the fable that is the bible, and it makes a clear case that religion was invented by man to satisfy a need for explanation of phenomena that the illiterate masses had no way of grasping, while incidentally (or perhaps not) concentrating power in the hands of a few who saw a convenient opportunity to avail themselves of it.

[legoman]

i have a question posed at super mario. on the first page he said that he did not have time for space ghost.

mario, why dont you like space ghost?

are you aware that this makes you a bad person?