JackC 0 #626 August 24, 2007 QuoteBut there could be an invisible, but omni-present, omicient, omnipotent Crow in the box who chooses to remain invisible so you have to take his existence solely on faith and on the Word of the holy writings of Dropzone.com (which, of course, are self-authenticating because they are the works of many authors in many locations over many years and are brought together to spread the Word)....couldn't there? I could be god. You don't know. But more seriously, in the limit that you can know anything, invisible omnipotent crows that wish to remain anonymous are as good as non-existant to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #627 August 25, 2007 Quote Quote But there could be an invisible, but omni-present, omicient, omnipotent Crow in the box who chooses to remain invisible so you have to take his existence solely on faith and on the Word of the holy writings of Dropzone.com (which, of course, are self-authenticating because they are the works of many authors in many locations over many years and are brought together to spread the Word)....couldn't there? I could be god. You don't know. But more seriously, in the limit that you can know anything, invisible omnipotent crows that wish to remain anonymous are as good as non-existant to me. You'll get yours when The Great Crowalla returns to punish non-believers... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #628 August 25, 2007 Quote You'll get yours when The Great Crowalla returns to punish non-believers I'm not worried. I'll just set my red hairy memejamba on him. Memejambas make good pets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #629 August 25, 2007 Quote True enough. If you have no idea what properties a memejamba has you can't do anything about proving anything. However, if someone lets slip that a memejamba is red, you've got a lead. If they let slip that a memejamba is hairy, you've got another lead. If there are no red hairy things in the box, then there are no memejamba's in the box. That is true if both parties agree that memejamba must be red, hairy and VISIBLE. However if you get non-physical characteristics, like the memejamba is omnipotent, omniscent, loving, caring, sent her son to die for your sins, and if you buy the box with memejamba, you'll be rich and happy after you die. No physical description, and there is nothing to look when you open the box. And there is a good reason to have NO physical description of memejamba. There is no way you can sell an empty box and claim there is chocolate - everyone knows what chocolate is, and your lie will be obvious. However because no one knows what memejamba is, and how it looks like, it makes it really easy to sell the empty boxes and claim there is memejamba in every box, which will make you happy and rich after you die.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #630 August 25, 2007 I see Science as the Living Creative Acts of God and the Bible as the Living Word of God. I have studied both extensively and hold both sacred. I personally have no problem holding them as equals. One thing is very obvious about both, we have only scratched the surface of what lies below. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #631 August 25, 2007 QuoteQuote ....If I were to give you the statement "there are no crows in this box" you could restate that as "there are crows in this box", then open the box and find crows or no crows. If you find no crows, you've proved the statement "there are crows in this box" to be false and thereby proved "there are no crows in this box" to be true, thereby proving a negative. But there could be an invisible, but omni-present, omicient, omnipotent Crow in the box who chooses to remain invisible so you have to take his existence solely on faith and on the Word of the holy writings of Dropzone.com (which, of course, are self-authenticating because they are the works of many authors in many locations over many years and are brought together to spread the Word)....couldn't there? every now and then i fall in love in SC... and it scares me..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #632 August 25, 2007 QuoteQuote I could be god. You don't know. . On the whole, I'd find it easier to believe in invisible omniscient hairy red mem-whatsits or The Great Crowalla than that you are a god. But that's just me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #633 August 25, 2007 Quote On the whole, I'd find it easier to believe in invisible omniscient hairy red mem-whatsits or The Great Crowalla than that you are a god. But that's just me. Infidel! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #634 August 25, 2007 QuoteThat is true if both parties agree that memejamba must be red, hairy and VISIBLE. However if you get non-physical characteristics, like the memejamba is omnipotent, omniscent, loving, caring, sent her son to die for your sins, and if you buy the box with memejamba, you'll be rich and happy after you die. No physical description, and there is nothing to look when you open the box. Well, properties like "omnipotent" might not seem as useful as properties like "red" if you're just doing a visual scan but it's not like you know nothing. You know this thing is omnipotent, that's a clue. Not a very useful one perhaps but it's still a clue. But like I said to Beowulf ~ Whenever an atheist tries to search the universe for a god (metaphorically speaking), the theist is always at an advantage because he can move the goal posts by changing what is meant by "God". Unless you can get the theist to give you a clue as to what god is, you can't do anything. If you do get a clue, the best you can do is follow it and see where it leads. Take omnipotence for example. Can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? That shoots omnipotence down by revealing a logical contradiction. The theist is then forced to define omnipotence not as "can do anything" but as "can do anything logically possible" or "can do anything within his nature". Each time the theist gives you clue, you follow it and expose the flaws and the theist is forced to move the goal posts again. Eventually, after you've shown them enough flaws they pull out the big guns and shout "faith!". It's a game and it always ends the same way. The theist shouts "faith!" and the game is over. QuoteAnd there is a good reason to have NO physical description of memejamba. There is no way you can sell an empty box and claim there is chocolate - everyone knows what chocolate is, and your lie will be obvious. However because no one knows what memejamba is, and how it looks like, it makes it really easy to sell the empty boxes and claim there is memejamba in every box, which will make you happy and rich after you die. Indeed, the most successful confidence tricks leave the victim with no knowledge that he was scammed. But religion is a lot more subtle than a Nigerian 419 scam. The Nigerian oil tycoon who needs to shift $400 million knows that he's attempting to rip you off whereas the theist actually believes there really is a memejamba in the box he's trying to sell you. People who believe their own hype make better salesmen than people who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #635 August 25, 2007 It's a game and it always ends the same way. The theist shouts "faith!" and the game is over. ____________________________________________ No, as long as you draw breath the game is not over. Another point I find interesting. It only takes a cursory glance at our history as a species to realize that science has only recently taken its proper place in the realities we construct for ourselves. For most of our existence science has been shrouded in superstition myth and mystery. Very few , if any people acknowledged it existed, until late (BCE 12,000). They contrived every possible explanation for natural phenomena. Because people were ignorant of science , and lacked the ability to prove its existence, did it make science any less real? Do you really think that we are at the end of all that is knowable such that we can make such sweeping conclusion like "I know there is no God because if there was someone would be able to prove it" What would you call that kind of leap of faith? Bold , brave, sincere, misinformed, arrogant, stupid? Help me out I would like to understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #636 August 25, 2007 Quote It's a game and it always ends the same way. The theist shouts "faith!" and the game is over. ____________________________________________ No, as long as you draw breath the game is not over. Another point I find interesting. It only takes a cursory glance at our history as a species to realize that science has only recently taken its proper place in the realities we construct for ourselves. For most of our existence science has been shrouded in superstition myth and mystery. Very few , if any people acknowledged it existed, until late (BCE 12,000). They contrived every possible explanation for natural phenomena. Because people were ignorant of science , and lacked the ability to prove its existence, did it make science any less real? Do you really think that we are at the end of all that is knowable such that we can make such sweeping conclusion like "I know there is no God because if there was someone would be able to prove it" What would you call that kind of leap of faith? Bold , brave, sincere, misinformed, arrogant, stupid? Help me out I would like to understand. Science isn't a new thing. It is a way of thinking logically. It is about critical thinking and questioning what we think we know and trying to understand the world around us. So with that said science has always been there. It may not have been given the label "science" till recently, but there have always been people developing critical thinking. Science is the product of critical thinking. sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciéns), prp. of scīre to know + -ia -ia] —Synonyms 7. art, technique, method, discipline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #637 August 25, 2007 I grew up around Chritianity. I was taught to believe in God. It never really made any sense to me. As I got older I the more I thought about God and the more questions I asked the less sense it made. I used critical thinking to analyze this idea of God. It didn't add up. I have since tossed the idea of god or any gods to the side. I never looked up atheism or agnosticism up or studied them. I made up my own mind. I have never read any book on atheism or agnosticism. I simply asked questions and used logic to try to make sense of the answers I was given. I came to the conclusion God or any gods do not exist. You ask enough questions about religion and sooner or later you get down to faith. I can't believe in something with out evidence and that is what faith is. I must have a reason to believe in something. I can't just believe in God because the Bible says so. I need more then that or else I think someone is trying to scam me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites zagijimzoo 0 #638 August 27, 2007 Yup its just like santa claus! Humans are very slow at evolving critical thinking! The Greeks thought the stars where the gods that controlled them! That the earth was the center of the universe! That the world was a flat disk floating in the ocean! And they really believed it! But luckily a few of them evolved critical thinking and proved those concepts wrong! Future generations will say the same about this time in history when the masses believed that a male dude created everything and lives above the clouds watching over us! Some of us have evolved into critical thinking but the masses still believe in elves! Its just a matter of time! Hopefully only a few more generations! How much scientific evidence does it take? I’m surprised they gave up the flat earth concept! Look how far we’ve come! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #639 August 27, 2007 QuoteYup its just like santa claus! Humans are very slow at evolving critical thinking! The Greeks thought the stars where the gods that controlled them! That the earth was the center of the universe! That the world was a flat disk floating in the ocean! And they really believed it! But luckily a few of them evolved critical thinking and proved those concepts wrong! Future generations will say the same about this time in history when the masses believed that a male dude created everything and lives above the clouds watching over us! Some of us have evolved into critical thinking but the masses still believe in elves! Its just a matter of time! Hopefully only a few more generations! How much scientific evidence does it take? I’m surprised they gave up the flat earth concept! Look how far we’ve come! I think you are misusing "evolve". The issue is that so few exercise the critical thinking capabilities that they have.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #640 August 27, 2007 QuoteOne thing is very obvious about both, we have only scratched the surface of what lies below. How do you know we have only scratched the surface, and what makes it so obvious? As far as science as an approach to gaining knowledge, I'd say it is very well defined. The scientific method is firmly established and is well beyond having just had it's surface scratched. If you mean the body of all knowledge that is being exposed and discovered using the scientific method, then I would agree - to a degree. Even there, it is not so obvious that we have yet to discover the nature of nature. The Standard Model has it's gaps, but is very well suited to making predictions and accurately modeling observations. Having mapped the constituent bits of nature down to a relatively homogenous level, I'd say it is highly debatable whether or not we have scratched the surface or gotten much deeper in understanding the world at a fundamental level. From the perspective of knowing everything there is about everythiong there is, then certainly we have only just begun. But the main factor there could simply be the incredible size of the universe - not our method of study." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #641 August 28, 2007 [ How do you know we have only scratched the surface, and what makes it so obvious? How about dark matter and energy that possibly makes up 95% of the universe, or the ubiquitous Higgs boson that determines the mass of matter, or the extra dimensions proposed by the string or M theories, or the theoretical possibilities yet to be proven or disproved predicted by general relativity etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Derekbox 0 #642 August 28, 2007 Something that has been bouncing around my head... It wasnt but a few hundred years ago, that your religious fathers, murdered those accused and convicted of witchcraft. They also believed in the same god as you do today... Just food for thought... I find it interesting that over time, people can rationalize and alter there beliefs (do you believe in witches?), yet still believe in a god? So do you believe in witches? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #643 August 28, 2007 QuoteDo you really think that we are at the end of all that is knowable such that we can make such sweeping conclusion like "I know there is no God because if there was someone would be able to prove it" That's not what I said at all. I base what I believe on what I know. I don't know anything at all about the deist god because he is by definition, outside of the box I am limited to and has never been inside. But belief in the deist god would be irrational because belief implies some knowledge of the object of my belief. I have no knowledge so I'd be an agnostic atheist towards the deist god. The christian god is different, he has allegedly been in this box and has inspired books so I can know quite a bit about him. From the stuff he is supposed to have inspired (or even written) he turns out to be about as logical as a square circle and my disbelief is justified on those grounds. I cannot categorically state that no gods exist since I am not omniscient. But I can say that all the gods I've bothered to investigate are very, very improbable indeed. Is that better? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #644 August 28, 2007 "You and your Rabbis IMHO make a very important mistake. YOu assume the Bible was written to everyone by it's original authors. Basic orthodox Christian exegesis states the biblical writer writes to HIS generation about a current situation using terms and idioms of the writer's own generation. The principles of truth are eternal, but the action of the passage are usually local and apply to that time and place. " "Am I right? It makes sense to me. We will see. " hello Steve. First off apologies for not getting back i have been away for a long weekend. I trust you had a good one too. I dont see how Im making any assumption about whether the author/s see themselves writing to the local situation or to eyeryone, I m just intepreting the passage as I see it. the passage says god creates evil(or calamity depending on translation) , therefore I assume thats what they meant. I dont assume it means "god sometimes creates evil" or .. I dont even know what your interpretation is , I just assume they mean what they say. Perhaps that is a big assumption but dare I say you argumetn that its written for local conditions but its truths are eternal seems to be groundless. If its only locally relevant why treat the bible as anything other than one of many ancient books? It seems to me you want it both ways; the bible only metaphorical when it comes to the nasty passages, much of its only appropriate to the time it was writeen etc etc But at the same time its the inflalaible word of god. Well forgive if I see those two concpets as contradictory. lastly on the point you make "Am I right? It makes sense to me. We will see. " well this is really the key point. No we will not see because unlike in a science we cannot do an experiment to find out who is correct and who is incorrect. That is why if a conclusion is drawn in science based upon evidence it has a lot more weight than if a conclusion is drawn by a bunch of theologians, the two are not in any way comparable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #645 August 28, 2007 "You assert God isn't real because it cannot be scientifically verified. I stated there are very real things that also cannot ve scientifically verified. Not everything can be measured with science. " What I have said on repeated occasions is that no evidence should lead to no belief. There is no evidence for god therefore there is no reason to believe in god. Exactly the same goes for Santa Claus. As far as love goes there is enormous evidence that love exists. For someone studying pyschology Im amzed you are unaware of the huge body of research involving everything from behavioural studies in animals to brain chemistry in humans. whilst we dont have any precise understanding we can say love is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Now if you want to put god and love on an equal footing , I can probably accept that god is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Is that what you are claiming? I dont think so. I think like most theists you are claiming god exists as some kind of entity that exists outside of our brains, now that will require some more evidene than simply your subjective feelings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #646 August 28, 2007 QuotePerhaps that is a big assumption but dare I say you argumetn that its written for local conditions but its truths are eternal seems to be groundless. If its only locally relevant why treat the bible as anything other than one of many ancient books? Obvious there is more than one way to look at biblical interpretation, just as there are more than one way to look at the cause of psychiatric conditions. For that matter there is more than one way to look at the cause of global warmig. The reason I follow the exegetical mode that says the biblical writer writes to his generation, but because it was "inspired" by God implies eternal truths is because it makes the most sense to me. I'm not so egotistical to think I alone have the correct biblical interpretation, but neither am I egotistical enough to believe that a man inspired 2000 -- 3000 years ago wrote only to my present generation with his writings that were addressed to people of his own generation. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #647 August 28, 2007 Quote"You assert God isn't real because it cannot be scientifically verified. I stated there are very real things that also cannot ve scientifically verified. Not everything can be measured with science. " What I have said on repeated occasions is that no evidence should lead to no belief. There is no evidence for god therefore there is no reason to believe in god. Exactly the same goes for Santa Claus. As far as love goes there is enormous evidence that love exists. For someone studying pyschology Im amzed you are unaware of the huge body of research involving everything from behavioural studies in animals to brain chemistry in humans. whilst we dont have any precise understanding we can say love is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Now if you want to put god and love on an equal footing , I can probably accept that god is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Is that what you are claiming? I dont think so. I think like most theists you are claiming god exists as some kind of entity that exists outside of our brains, now that will require some more evidene than simply your subjective feelings. I'm vaguely aware of the psychological studies that map the brain in regards to love. Since I'm centered on therapy and not research I don't tend to read a lot of those studies. My research and reading tend to be on new ideas of therapy. However, I'm also aware that there has also been studies that map a "god" gene. So what does that prove? My point is not that God is an emotion similar to love, but rather God, by his very nature, is not something that can be reproduced or studied in a laboratory. If the biblical God is correct, He is the catalyst that began creation. He is that millisecond before the "big bang". He is in fact outside of time that he created. If I'm trying to reduce God down to something I can study like a science project, I have reduced my concept of God down to be so small he would no longer be God. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Derekbox 0 #648 August 28, 2007 QuoteIf I'm trying to reduce God down to something I can study like a science project, I have reduced my concept of God down to be so small he would no longer be God. ...and what is the problem with that? ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #649 August 28, 2007 So for god to be God he has to be unknowable and mysterious?? Yeah that really makes me want to believe! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #650 August 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf I'm trying to reduce God down to something I can study like a science project, I have reduced my concept of God down to be so small he would no longer be God. ...and what is the problem with that? ;) Hypothetically, if there is a God and if the only way we can study him is through a scientific method that would reduce him to something he isn't, then the outcome of our study would be invalid. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next Page 26 of 49 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JackC 0 #633 August 25, 2007 Quote On the whole, I'd find it easier to believe in invisible omniscient hairy red mem-whatsits or The Great Crowalla than that you are a god. But that's just me. Infidel! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #634 August 25, 2007 QuoteThat is true if both parties agree that memejamba must be red, hairy and VISIBLE. However if you get non-physical characteristics, like the memejamba is omnipotent, omniscent, loving, caring, sent her son to die for your sins, and if you buy the box with memejamba, you'll be rich and happy after you die. No physical description, and there is nothing to look when you open the box. Well, properties like "omnipotent" might not seem as useful as properties like "red" if you're just doing a visual scan but it's not like you know nothing. You know this thing is omnipotent, that's a clue. Not a very useful one perhaps but it's still a clue. But like I said to Beowulf ~ Whenever an atheist tries to search the universe for a god (metaphorically speaking), the theist is always at an advantage because he can move the goal posts by changing what is meant by "God". Unless you can get the theist to give you a clue as to what god is, you can't do anything. If you do get a clue, the best you can do is follow it and see where it leads. Take omnipotence for example. Can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? That shoots omnipotence down by revealing a logical contradiction. The theist is then forced to define omnipotence not as "can do anything" but as "can do anything logically possible" or "can do anything within his nature". Each time the theist gives you clue, you follow it and expose the flaws and the theist is forced to move the goal posts again. Eventually, after you've shown them enough flaws they pull out the big guns and shout "faith!". It's a game and it always ends the same way. The theist shouts "faith!" and the game is over. QuoteAnd there is a good reason to have NO physical description of memejamba. There is no way you can sell an empty box and claim there is chocolate - everyone knows what chocolate is, and your lie will be obvious. However because no one knows what memejamba is, and how it looks like, it makes it really easy to sell the empty boxes and claim there is memejamba in every box, which will make you happy and rich after you die. Indeed, the most successful confidence tricks leave the victim with no knowledge that he was scammed. But religion is a lot more subtle than a Nigerian 419 scam. The Nigerian oil tycoon who needs to shift $400 million knows that he's attempting to rip you off whereas the theist actually believes there really is a memejamba in the box he's trying to sell you. People who believe their own hype make better salesmen than people who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #635 August 25, 2007 It's a game and it always ends the same way. The theist shouts "faith!" and the game is over. ____________________________________________ No, as long as you draw breath the game is not over. Another point I find interesting. It only takes a cursory glance at our history as a species to realize that science has only recently taken its proper place in the realities we construct for ourselves. For most of our existence science has been shrouded in superstition myth and mystery. Very few , if any people acknowledged it existed, until late (BCE 12,000). They contrived every possible explanation for natural phenomena. Because people were ignorant of science , and lacked the ability to prove its existence, did it make science any less real? Do you really think that we are at the end of all that is knowable such that we can make such sweeping conclusion like "I know there is no God because if there was someone would be able to prove it" What would you call that kind of leap of faith? Bold , brave, sincere, misinformed, arrogant, stupid? Help me out I would like to understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #636 August 25, 2007 Quote It's a game and it always ends the same way. The theist shouts "faith!" and the game is over. ____________________________________________ No, as long as you draw breath the game is not over. Another point I find interesting. It only takes a cursory glance at our history as a species to realize that science has only recently taken its proper place in the realities we construct for ourselves. For most of our existence science has been shrouded in superstition myth and mystery. Very few , if any people acknowledged it existed, until late (BCE 12,000). They contrived every possible explanation for natural phenomena. Because people were ignorant of science , and lacked the ability to prove its existence, did it make science any less real? Do you really think that we are at the end of all that is knowable such that we can make such sweeping conclusion like "I know there is no God because if there was someone would be able to prove it" What would you call that kind of leap of faith? Bold , brave, sincere, misinformed, arrogant, stupid? Help me out I would like to understand. Science isn't a new thing. It is a way of thinking logically. It is about critical thinking and questioning what we think we know and trying to understand the world around us. So with that said science has always been there. It may not have been given the label "science" till recently, but there have always been people developing critical thinking. Science is the product of critical thinking. sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciéns), prp. of scīre to know + -ia -ia] —Synonyms 7. art, technique, method, discipline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #637 August 25, 2007 I grew up around Chritianity. I was taught to believe in God. It never really made any sense to me. As I got older I the more I thought about God and the more questions I asked the less sense it made. I used critical thinking to analyze this idea of God. It didn't add up. I have since tossed the idea of god or any gods to the side. I never looked up atheism or agnosticism up or studied them. I made up my own mind. I have never read any book on atheism or agnosticism. I simply asked questions and used logic to try to make sense of the answers I was given. I came to the conclusion God or any gods do not exist. You ask enough questions about religion and sooner or later you get down to faith. I can't believe in something with out evidence and that is what faith is. I must have a reason to believe in something. I can't just believe in God because the Bible says so. I need more then that or else I think someone is trying to scam me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zagijimzoo 0 #638 August 27, 2007 Yup its just like santa claus! Humans are very slow at evolving critical thinking! The Greeks thought the stars where the gods that controlled them! That the earth was the center of the universe! That the world was a flat disk floating in the ocean! And they really believed it! But luckily a few of them evolved critical thinking and proved those concepts wrong! Future generations will say the same about this time in history when the masses believed that a male dude created everything and lives above the clouds watching over us! Some of us have evolved into critical thinking but the masses still believe in elves! Its just a matter of time! Hopefully only a few more generations! How much scientific evidence does it take? I’m surprised they gave up the flat earth concept! Look how far we’ve come! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #639 August 27, 2007 QuoteYup its just like santa claus! Humans are very slow at evolving critical thinking! The Greeks thought the stars where the gods that controlled them! That the earth was the center of the universe! That the world was a flat disk floating in the ocean! And they really believed it! But luckily a few of them evolved critical thinking and proved those concepts wrong! Future generations will say the same about this time in history when the masses believed that a male dude created everything and lives above the clouds watching over us! Some of us have evolved into critical thinking but the masses still believe in elves! Its just a matter of time! Hopefully only a few more generations! How much scientific evidence does it take? I’m surprised they gave up the flat earth concept! Look how far we’ve come! I think you are misusing "evolve". The issue is that so few exercise the critical thinking capabilities that they have.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #640 August 27, 2007 QuoteOne thing is very obvious about both, we have only scratched the surface of what lies below. How do you know we have only scratched the surface, and what makes it so obvious? As far as science as an approach to gaining knowledge, I'd say it is very well defined. The scientific method is firmly established and is well beyond having just had it's surface scratched. If you mean the body of all knowledge that is being exposed and discovered using the scientific method, then I would agree - to a degree. Even there, it is not so obvious that we have yet to discover the nature of nature. The Standard Model has it's gaps, but is very well suited to making predictions and accurately modeling observations. Having mapped the constituent bits of nature down to a relatively homogenous level, I'd say it is highly debatable whether or not we have scratched the surface or gotten much deeper in understanding the world at a fundamental level. From the perspective of knowing everything there is about everythiong there is, then certainly we have only just begun. But the main factor there could simply be the incredible size of the universe - not our method of study." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #641 August 28, 2007 [ How do you know we have only scratched the surface, and what makes it so obvious? How about dark matter and energy that possibly makes up 95% of the universe, or the ubiquitous Higgs boson that determines the mass of matter, or the extra dimensions proposed by the string or M theories, or the theoretical possibilities yet to be proven or disproved predicted by general relativity etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derekbox 0 #642 August 28, 2007 Something that has been bouncing around my head... It wasnt but a few hundred years ago, that your religious fathers, murdered those accused and convicted of witchcraft. They also believed in the same god as you do today... Just food for thought... I find it interesting that over time, people can rationalize and alter there beliefs (do you believe in witches?), yet still believe in a god? So do you believe in witches? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #643 August 28, 2007 QuoteDo you really think that we are at the end of all that is knowable such that we can make such sweeping conclusion like "I know there is no God because if there was someone would be able to prove it" That's not what I said at all. I base what I believe on what I know. I don't know anything at all about the deist god because he is by definition, outside of the box I am limited to and has never been inside. But belief in the deist god would be irrational because belief implies some knowledge of the object of my belief. I have no knowledge so I'd be an agnostic atheist towards the deist god. The christian god is different, he has allegedly been in this box and has inspired books so I can know quite a bit about him. From the stuff he is supposed to have inspired (or even written) he turns out to be about as logical as a square circle and my disbelief is justified on those grounds. I cannot categorically state that no gods exist since I am not omniscient. But I can say that all the gods I've bothered to investigate are very, very improbable indeed. Is that better? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #644 August 28, 2007 "You and your Rabbis IMHO make a very important mistake. YOu assume the Bible was written to everyone by it's original authors. Basic orthodox Christian exegesis states the biblical writer writes to HIS generation about a current situation using terms and idioms of the writer's own generation. The principles of truth are eternal, but the action of the passage are usually local and apply to that time and place. " "Am I right? It makes sense to me. We will see. " hello Steve. First off apologies for not getting back i have been away for a long weekend. I trust you had a good one too. I dont see how Im making any assumption about whether the author/s see themselves writing to the local situation or to eyeryone, I m just intepreting the passage as I see it. the passage says god creates evil(or calamity depending on translation) , therefore I assume thats what they meant. I dont assume it means "god sometimes creates evil" or .. I dont even know what your interpretation is , I just assume they mean what they say. Perhaps that is a big assumption but dare I say you argumetn that its written for local conditions but its truths are eternal seems to be groundless. If its only locally relevant why treat the bible as anything other than one of many ancient books? It seems to me you want it both ways; the bible only metaphorical when it comes to the nasty passages, much of its only appropriate to the time it was writeen etc etc But at the same time its the inflalaible word of god. Well forgive if I see those two concpets as contradictory. lastly on the point you make "Am I right? It makes sense to me. We will see. " well this is really the key point. No we will not see because unlike in a science we cannot do an experiment to find out who is correct and who is incorrect. That is why if a conclusion is drawn in science based upon evidence it has a lot more weight than if a conclusion is drawn by a bunch of theologians, the two are not in any way comparable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #645 August 28, 2007 "You assert God isn't real because it cannot be scientifically verified. I stated there are very real things that also cannot ve scientifically verified. Not everything can be measured with science. " What I have said on repeated occasions is that no evidence should lead to no belief. There is no evidence for god therefore there is no reason to believe in god. Exactly the same goes for Santa Claus. As far as love goes there is enormous evidence that love exists. For someone studying pyschology Im amzed you are unaware of the huge body of research involving everything from behavioural studies in animals to brain chemistry in humans. whilst we dont have any precise understanding we can say love is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Now if you want to put god and love on an equal footing , I can probably accept that god is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Is that what you are claiming? I dont think so. I think like most theists you are claiming god exists as some kind of entity that exists outside of our brains, now that will require some more evidene than simply your subjective feelings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #646 August 28, 2007 QuotePerhaps that is a big assumption but dare I say you argumetn that its written for local conditions but its truths are eternal seems to be groundless. If its only locally relevant why treat the bible as anything other than one of many ancient books? Obvious there is more than one way to look at biblical interpretation, just as there are more than one way to look at the cause of psychiatric conditions. For that matter there is more than one way to look at the cause of global warmig. The reason I follow the exegetical mode that says the biblical writer writes to his generation, but because it was "inspired" by God implies eternal truths is because it makes the most sense to me. I'm not so egotistical to think I alone have the correct biblical interpretation, but neither am I egotistical enough to believe that a man inspired 2000 -- 3000 years ago wrote only to my present generation with his writings that were addressed to people of his own generation. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #647 August 28, 2007 Quote"You assert God isn't real because it cannot be scientifically verified. I stated there are very real things that also cannot ve scientifically verified. Not everything can be measured with science. " What I have said on repeated occasions is that no evidence should lead to no belief. There is no evidence for god therefore there is no reason to believe in god. Exactly the same goes for Santa Claus. As far as love goes there is enormous evidence that love exists. For someone studying pyschology Im amzed you are unaware of the huge body of research involving everything from behavioural studies in animals to brain chemistry in humans. whilst we dont have any precise understanding we can say love is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Now if you want to put god and love on an equal footing , I can probably accept that god is an emotional state that resides in the brain. Is that what you are claiming? I dont think so. I think like most theists you are claiming god exists as some kind of entity that exists outside of our brains, now that will require some more evidene than simply your subjective feelings. I'm vaguely aware of the psychological studies that map the brain in regards to love. Since I'm centered on therapy and not research I don't tend to read a lot of those studies. My research and reading tend to be on new ideas of therapy. However, I'm also aware that there has also been studies that map a "god" gene. So what does that prove? My point is not that God is an emotion similar to love, but rather God, by his very nature, is not something that can be reproduced or studied in a laboratory. If the biblical God is correct, He is the catalyst that began creation. He is that millisecond before the "big bang". He is in fact outside of time that he created. If I'm trying to reduce God down to something I can study like a science project, I have reduced my concept of God down to be so small he would no longer be God. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derekbox 0 #648 August 28, 2007 QuoteIf I'm trying to reduce God down to something I can study like a science project, I have reduced my concept of God down to be so small he would no longer be God. ...and what is the problem with that? ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #649 August 28, 2007 So for god to be God he has to be unknowable and mysterious?? Yeah that really makes me want to believe! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #650 August 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf I'm trying to reduce God down to something I can study like a science project, I have reduced my concept of God down to be so small he would no longer be God. ...and what is the problem with that? ;) Hypothetically, if there is a God and if the only way we can study him is through a scientific method that would reduce him to something he isn't, then the outcome of our study would be invalid. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
