How many of you believe in God? [Archive]

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 10:25 AM

religion is a major crutch, among other things. look at this very intelligent post.

The only thing backing religion is a strong desire from people to believe because it gives them comfort. What is God really? He's an imaginary friend for such people to pacify the grim realities of life.

What problems do I have with religion?

- It is a system of brainwashing. Religious parents generally don't let their children choose and grow and see if religion finds them. They teach their children to believe in something irrational by nature, and tell them they are to model their lives by outdated principles which conflict with utilitarianism. They instill religion into them before they develop the cognitive capacity to question.

- It holds people back. I dislike how people deny themselves from greater pleasure out of life to chase a fairy tale. People should live for the here and now, they should live for the only time they are guaranteed. In my life I plan on experiencing as much as possible and enjoying it to its fullest extent. I'm not going to curb and dismiss my desires based on, again, a fairy tale.

- It doesn't make sense. It is irrational, unlogical, and simply just doesn't add up. Heaven sounds like a pretty boring place to me anyways, but you're going to try and tell me that for every other creature and species on this planet there is death, absolute death without anything beyond, and then for humans there is a magical land somewhere... of course nowhere tangible... it's just... out there for us. Yuh huh, sure.

- It negatively effects society for others. Separation of church and state in the U.S.? Keep dreaming. Thank God I live in Canada and not in the United States of Jesus. It preaches outdated principles, such as that Homosexuality is a disgusting sin... yeah right, homosexuality isn't a choice it's how you're born. So lets see, god creates homosexuals and then goes on to say that they are innate sinners and never stand a chance. It doesn't make sense, so what do religious people believe... they cling on to an inane belief that all homosexuals are such by choice, and are immoral people for it. If you don't believe that however then you don't believe that the bible is the written word of God in which case you really aren't truly following your religion now are you? How about mentally handicapped people who don't have the intelligence level to conform to religion... what are they, condemned to hell and existing on earth as nothing more than an example of God's twisted sense of humor?

- It effects one's ability to think intelligently. Many religious people just simply won't accept anything that doesn't correspond with their "faith". Instead of looking at theories, discoveries etc. with an open mind... they only look for ways to contend their validity in order to continue to align with their, "faith". For example, evolution... it is not yet an absolutely proven theory however it does hold a vast ammount of supporting evidence, and is continuing to grow in that respect. Yet most religious people don't even give this theory a chance because their fairy tale tells them otherwise. It doesn't matter to them, as long as it isn't a 100% guaranteed truth, religious people will continue to ignore any validity it holds and call if absolute rubbish.

there you go. simple, smart, direct.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 10:34 AM

it is called faith and millions of people have it and it is no a crutch but a source of strength :)

Faith by definition means you have no reason to believe in something except for your desire to believe in it. If there was reason or evidence, it wouldn't be faith. So someone with faith is someone saying "I have no reason to believe this, but I really want to, so I will".

Yeah, it's a source of strength, like many crutches. It's an irrational belief that people hold so that they feel better about themselves and reality. How is that not a crutch? It helps people to get by, just like a real crutch helps people to get around.

EDIT: Thaibxr's rant has nothing to do with theism and everything to do with Christianity. It's completely inapplicable to anyone who isn't a Christian, or doesn't hold the specific religious beliefs he attacks. He's equating theism with popular Christian doctrine, and that is a ridiculous equivocation.

Keikai

26-Jul-2005, 10:36 AM

My mate believes in DOG, he's a dyslexic!!!:D

alister

26-Jul-2005, 10:42 AM

Not sure about the existence of "GOD" in the classic sense, but I do believe that there is something out there that guides our choices and actions and something that does invoke a kind of "karmic" outcome to our actions.

My life has had far too many twists, turns and coincidences for me to believe that everything is left to chance... or maybe that's just me being superstitious.

I think it's more a kind of "energy" that exists amongst us...has anyone read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams? That's kind of how I think "God" might be.....

Lord Spooky

26-Jul-2005, 10:48 AM

I think it's more a kind of "energy" that exists amongst us...has anyone read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams? That's kind of how I think "God" might be.....

Sorry no I haven't and no I'm not being funny but that sort of sounds a bit Force-ish????

Could you please explain?

zanflad

26-Jul-2005, 10:50 AM

i have plenty of reasons to believe in god, but they are personal to me and would not make much sense to others, so for me its more than i just wanting to believe, i have good reasons to believe in god,

alister

26-Jul-2005, 10:55 AM

Sorry no I haven't and no I'm not being funny but that sort of sounds a bit Force-ish????

Could you please explain?

I don't want to spoil the book for anyone that is going to read (I recommend it - it's only short and not full-on religion at all).

But, the basic premise is that at a sub atomic level, we are all the same part of one whole - that whole being "God"...we are, therefore, "God's Debris".

Over time, we have all become pretty disparate, but over recent centuries, technology has brought us closer and closer - travel, communication, internet etc, so we are slowly becoming one consciousness again (could question this in light of recent world events of course!).

As we move closer, we begin to reform the debris that once was "God" - ie. a collective human existance in harmony with each other.

Not saying it's what I fully believe but it's an interesting idea no?

Lord Spooky

26-Jul-2005, 11:02 AM

Not saying it's what I fully believe but it's an interesting idea no?

Yeah it is I may go out and get the book !!

alister

26-Jul-2005, 11:09 AM

Just as an aside... it's the same Guy that does Dilbert

Maverick

26-Jul-2005, 11:27 AM

medi

26-Jul-2005, 11:48 AM

God speaks to me every day.

Mostly, it's to tell me which prostitutes to kill.

Lord Spooky

26-Jul-2005, 11:51 AM

God speaks to me every day.

Mostly, it's to tell me which prostitutes to kill.

LOL

Can't remember who said this but:

Why is it when you're speaking to God then you're praying but when God speaks to you then you're Schizophrenic ?????

LittleGirlBlue

26-Jul-2005, 12:59 PM

There's no rational basis for believing in God.

If evidence appears, then I will believe.

Til then, I maintain that free will does not exist and as such any God will not punish you for 'sins' committed on earth such as refusing to believe in it.

Some food for thought - the vast majority of religious people (I'll take a wild guess of 99.5%) are religious because their parents are and filled their heads with ideas before they were capable of full rational analysis.

Word...*tackle* ....

I DEFFINITELY do not believe in religion, and never will. Whether or not there is a god I dont know. But like maverick, I believe that if there is a god, he is not going to care whether we go sit in church on sundays, or if we eat dairy and meat at the same time, or touch the skin of a dead pig, or even believe that he exists. As long as we live our lives as good people, God is not gonna care. The problem I have with religion, is that it tells you if you dont believe it exactly as they say it youre wrong and youre going to hell.. .(of course with the exception of some very open minded and accepting churches. A rare find)

Once I have children I hope to find an open minded church to bring them to for a few years. My parents raised me methodist and when I was 14 I was given the choice to continue to go to sunday school or to stop. I , like my brothers, decided I was done with church. I thought the bible was rediculous, I thought the preacher was way over the top, and I didnt want to wake up at 7 on Sundays :).... But I do think its a good idea to at least expose kids to some kind of religion....give them the option to believe.

I think religion is a crutch for some, but thats alright. There is nothing wrong with believing in something. If it makes you feel good, if it makes you feel confident about what is to come after death, than so be it. Faith comforts people, sometimes I wish I had some of it. Unfortunately Im just way to fact oriented.....

Aegis

26-Jul-2005, 01:23 PM

Moved to Religion

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 04:34 PM

I found the following series of posts very informative.

atheism is a major crutch, among other things. look at this very intelligent post.

The only thing backing atheism is a strong desire from people to believe because it gives them comfort. What is atheism really? It's a method to escape reality by having no consequences for your poor choices and selfish decisions to pacify the grim realities of the afterlife.

What problems do I have with atheism?

- It is a system of brainwashing. Human beings in every culture on every continent uniformly have a root belief in one Supreme Being who created everything, judges the wicked and rewards the righteous. Atheist parents generally don't let their children choose and grow and see if religion finds them. They teach their children to believe in something irrational by nature (like the belief that this God, found by cultural anthropologists in over 85% of all civilizations studied, doesn't actually exist), and tell them they are to model their lives by outdated principles which conflict with utilitarianism. They instill atheism into them before they develop the cognitive capacity to question.

- It holds people back. I dislike how people deny themselves the greatest pleasure of life (knowing and experiencing God personally) to chase a fairy tale (that they can be happy and fulfilled without Him). People should enjoy God here and now, and plan for the absolute inevitable event that they are guaranteed: they will one day die. Atheism teaches that people are accidental random events in a chaotic universe. This belief keeps them from finding the joy of knowing and living with purpose: an understanding that a sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise Creator-God made them for a reason, and they can have a part to play in His good plan of the ages. They should live with full knowledge of the reason they exist, and not just stumble through a meaningless, pointless existence on earth. In my life I plan on experiencing as much as possible and enjoying it to its fullest extent. I'm going to curb my base desires in order to experience something far greater and more important, both here-and-now, AND there-and-then.

- It doesn't make sense. It is irrational, unlogical, and simply just doesn't add up. Why treat others kindly, or care about anyone else...if 'survival of the fittest' is the only rule in town? Why create? Why enjoy? Why do anything at all except lay down and die, if there is no purpose to existence, and life stinks, and then you die anyway?

- It negatively effects society for others. Atheist humanism was the dominant philosophy of Nazi Germany, Chinese Maoism, Third-world Marxism, and Soviet Leninism. Between these philosophies, I count a (very conservative) total of 150 million people murdered, in the last 100 years. On the other hand, those who believe in God have been the ones to pioneer advances in medicine, establish the university system as we know it, invent and harness the scientific method for discovery, establish hospitals and works of charity, and generally, start every major advance in the history of human civilization. And why not? Believers in God see other people as having value and worth simply because they are created in God's image and are the objects of His love. Therefore, they care for them, in spite of great cost and personal difficulty. That is why believers in God, and not atheists, established works and charities to tend to the poor, needy, sick, dying, diseased, mentally handicapped, and homeless.

- It effects one's ability to think intelligently. Many atheists just simply won't accept anything that doesn't correspond with their lack of faith. Instead of looking at theories, discoveries etc. with an open mind... they only look for ways to contend their validity in order to continue to align with their disbelief. For example, the above paragraphs. Even though these advances in society are historically accurate and undeniable, many atheists will deny any advances or benefits of religious belief and point instead to failures of individuals who claim to have such belief. Religion has positively impacted every aspect of their own civilization and culture, and yet it doesn't matter to them, atheistic people will continue to ignore any validity it holds and call it absolute rubbish.

:D

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 04:45 PM

BWAHAHAH!!!! that was good. a nice little laugh there. now had any of that been true, my jaw would be on the floor. The original is far more accurate and dipicts far more a realistic assessment of the actions and thought process. I like my crutch is made of metal thankyou. {my smileys don't work for some reason???}

LittleGirlBlue

26-Jul-2005, 04:55 PM

Only problem Anne is that Athiesm doesnt give comfort.

I know youre trying to turn the tables and make a point but :

"dislike how people deny themselves the greatest pleasure of life (knowing and experiencing God personally) to chase a fairy tale (that they can be happy and fulfilled without Him)."

I know many people who do not believe in God that are very happy and fullfilled. They dont need someone (a preacher) or something (a book) to tell them what is write and wrong. They learned that from their parents, and through experience, and by listening to how they felt. They dont need to fear death not because they think they will live on with God but because they have had a good life and feel very lucky for it. Theyve made their contribution through their work and/or their children, and their belief, or non belief in God has nothing to do with how happy or fulfilled they feel.

ThaiBxr

26-Jul-2005, 04:59 PM

We humans seem to be obsessed with justifying everything. Its almost like its our nature to preach to ourselves in our minds that some of the evil we do is justified. "Well I do this, a preacher said I shouldn`t, so now I think he is close minded because he doesn`t think what I enjoy doing is right."

Sometimes its good to just take a moment to reflect on how ignorant we all really are. My ignorance never ceases to amaze me. And I sure hope there is a higher power, otherwise existences standard is pretty low.

Umm, do you not realize the irony in your statements. You're just using the notion of God now to justify living.

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 05:13 PM

"dislike how people deny themselves the greatest pleasure of life (knowing and experiencing God personally) to chase a fairy tale (that they can be happy and fulfilled without Him)."

I know many people who do not believe in God that are very happy and fullfilled. They dont need someone (a preacher) or something (a book) to tell them what is write and wrong. They learned that from their parents, and through experience, and by listening to how they felt. They dont need to fear death not because they think they will live on with God but because they have had a good life and feel very lucky for it. Theyve made their contribution through their work and/or their children, and their belief, or non belief in God has nothing to do with how happy or fulfilled they feel.

If believing in god is the greatest pleasure and fulfillment you've ever experianced, I really, truly pity you, i certainly wouldn't want to be you. I reccomend acheiving a goal and getting laid. Thats pleausre and fulfillment. now if its just straight joy you are looking for, then well....what ever floats your boat i guess. not everyone needs nor wants to make a "contribution" either simply live life and enjoy it. God has absolutely nothing to do with the degree of fulfillment i have, thats the way it is for most of the planet. even alot of the highly religious people i know don't attribute thier happiness to an invisable sadist.

LittleGirlBlue

26-Jul-2005, 05:17 PM

If believing in god is the greatest pleasure and fulfillment you've ever experianced, I really, truly pity you, i certainly wouldn't want to be you. I reccomend acheiving a goal and getting laid. Thats pleausre and fulfillment. now if its just straight joy you are looking for, then well....what ever floats your boat i guess. not everyone needs nor wants to make a "contribution" either simply live life and enjoy it. God has absolutely nothing to do with the degree of fulfillment i have, thats the way it is for most of the planet. even alot of the highly religious people i know don't attribute thier happiness to an invisable sadist.

Sweetie, Im an athiest, I was quoting CaptAnne... :D Did you actually read the post you quoted?

ThaiBxr

26-Jul-2005, 05:17 PM

EDIT: Thaibxr's rant has nothing to do with theism and everything to do with Christianity. It's completely inapplicable to anyone who isn't a Christian, or doesn't hold the specific religious beliefs he attacks. He's equating theism with popular Christian doctrine, and that is a ridiculous equivocation.

Okay, yes parts of that rant are aimed at a particular christian doctrine, however there's no equivocation in the post. The titles which are aimed at a particular Christian doctrine are blatantly obviously done so. This isn't just me equating all of theism with that sole doctrine, it's because it's that particular doctrine which dominates the continent I live on. As it is that doctrine which is the only one with such power and influence, it is that doctrine which is primarily responsible for my disliking of religion. The thread that it was made under was asking why I disliked religion, and I responded.

Also no, it isn't completely unapplicable to anyone who isn't a Christian, I'm not going to bother to point out where, just read it again, if you still think it's entirely unapplicable then I'll explain.

ThaiBxr

26-Jul-2005, 05:22 PM

LOL

Can't remember who said this but:

Why is it when you're speaking to God then you're praying but when God speaks to you then you're Schizophrenic ?????

yeah that was me.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 05:22 PM

Tekken:

I don't have a ton of time to comment, so I'll be brief:

While I appreciate your atheism and don't begrudge you your beliefs, to comment that someone who feels that the highest thing they can achieve in life is a union with the divine needs to focus on "acheiving a goal and getting laid" is without a doubt one of the most childish and purely petty comments I've seen you make about religion.

And please provide sources for your sweeping statement of "thats the way it is for most of the planet." As ws noted ealier, and quite accurately by Capt Ann, a majority of the world does in fact practice some form of religion. So if you're going to make sweeping generalizations, provide the stats to go with it.

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 05:25 PM

Sweetie, Im an athiest, I was quoting CaptAnne... :D Did you actually read the post you quoted?

I know!!! i was trying to get that tid bit that captanne said. WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY SMILEYS!!!!! {they don't work}

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 05:34 PM

While I appreciate your atheism and don't begrudge you your beliefs, to comment that someone who feels that the highest thing they can achieve in life is a union with the divine needs to focus on "acheiving a goal and getting laid" is without a doubt one of the most childish and purely petty comments I've seen you make about religion.

"I appreciate your atheisim" awwwww......no ones ever said that to me before *smiles* {whatt the hell is wrong with my smileys????}

Its more than alittle strange to hear someone say "the greatest pleasure and fulfullment of my life is knowing god" it saddens me, really, i pity her, i really do. that shows how little of life she has experianced. i was giving 2 examples, one physical, one spiritual/emotional. i suppose you'd think it less childish if i had said "Enjoy life and find a husband"? or "have kids and eat crab legs" ???

Anth

26-Jul-2005, 05:36 PM

I know!!! i was trying to get that tid bit that captanne said. WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY SMILEYS!!!!! {they don't work}
Check either the Problems forum or the Suggestions/Questions forum. There is a thread about the smiley problem there ;)

ThaiBxr

26-Jul-2005, 05:39 PM

Tekken:

I don't have a ton of time to comment, so I'll be brief:

While I appreciate your atheism and don't begrudge you your beliefs, to comment that someone who feels that the highest thing they can achieve in life is a union with the divine needs to focus on "acheiving a goal and getting laid" is without a doubt one of the most childish and purely petty comments I've seen you make about religion.

Not really, it was put bluntly but you should also recognize that the primary goal in life for practically every living creature on this planet is to get laid. Now if he had reworded it and talked about how propogation is truly the primary focus of life, you wouldn't have found it petty at all. Suck up the syntax and focus on the point.

LittleGirlBlue

26-Jul-2005, 05:41 PM

I know!!! i was trying to get that tid bit that captanne said. WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY SMILEYS!!!!! {they don't work}

Oh ok...

My smilies wont work either.... or hyperlinking... unless you just use the plain text... like so:

: D = :D
; ) = ;)
: p = :p

Maverick

26-Jul-2005, 05:50 PM

You can also link directly to the file with an [ img] tag, btw.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 05:55 PM

Not really, it was put bluntly but you should also recognize that the primary goal in life for practically every living creature on this planet is to get laid. Now if he had reworded it and talked about how propogation is truly the primary focus of life, you wouldn't have found it petty at all. Suck up the syntax and focus on the point.

Yes, I would have. The greatest pursuit on earth, believe it or not, does not revolve around bedding everything that moves. Don't tell me what I think, I do well enough on my own.

"I appreciate your atheisim" awwwww......no ones ever said that to me before *smiles* {whatt the hell is wrong with my smileys????}

Its more than alittle strange to hear someone say "the greatest pleasure and fulfullment of my life is knowing god" it saddens me, really, i pity her, i really do. that shows how little of life she has experianced. i was giving 2 examples, one physical, one spiritual/emotional. i suppose you'd think it less childish if i had said "Enjoy life and find a husband"? or "have kids and eat crab legs" ???

I know, that sounded pretty cheesy, but I wanted to make sure you understood I'm not interested in attacking you over the atheist thing. But believe it or not, for many people it takes a lifetime to achieve the connection with the divine that many people, despite your protestations, do seek.

There is a sublime pleasure which exists in knowing that there is something out there bigger than you, me, or our petty concerns as mortals. Whether you call it God, Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, Ancestors, or the Way, when you've made that connection, it's pretty fulfilling. I suspect that CaptAnn has lived quite a full life in her opnion, and finding that relationship, if that's what she did, does probably play a big par of it. But you'd be surprised at the work that goes into that; how much living you really need to do to achieve it.

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 06:00 PM

I know youre trying to turn the tables and make a point but.....Thank you for recognizing that. Obviously, I wasn't trying to imply that people who don't believe in God don't have any morals. Interestingly, I don't think we get our morals from a preacher, or a book, or even our parents or experience. I think they are hard-wired into us by a God intent on making Himself known to us.

By the way......welcome back! :)

LittleGirlBlue

26-Jul-2005, 06:03 PM

Thank you for recognizing that. Obviously, I wasn't trying to imply that people who don't believe in God don't have any morals. Interestingly, I don't think we get our morals from a preacher, or a book, or even our parents or experience. I think they are hard-wired into us by a God intent on making Himself known to us.

By the way......welcome back! :)

Thanks... *blush*

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 06:07 PM

I don't think we get our morals from a preacher, or a book, or even our parents or experience. I think they are hard-wired into us by a God intent on making Himself known to us

*sighs heavily and nods head in silence*

ThaiBxr

26-Jul-2005, 06:20 PM

Yes, I would have. The greatest pursuit on earth, believe it or not, does not revolve around bedding everything that moves. Don't tell me what I think, I do well enough on my own.

Well, no, it doesn't revolve around screwing everything that movies, although it does revolve around reproducing. I'm not telling you what you think, I'm telling you how it is. The greatest natural pursuit for any living thing you look at on this earth is propagation.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 06:23 PM

ThaiBxr

26-Jul-2005, 06:34 PM

Not for me. No interest in propogating whatsoever. If my family name dies, oh well, such is life, but I ain't interested in having kids.

Back on track now, or shall we debate the anceint Hebrew goal of having all the kids you can, which is certainly shared by many modern-day Catholics?

Humans have made a point, and rightfully so of separating themselves from their human nature in order to function as a society in the best manner possible. The instincts are still there though, knowledge and social order just conflict with them. Why do you think almost all guys start masturbating as soon as they hit puberty... because that's their human nature kicking in telling them to go get laid, they just don't have the same ability to just go and do so as we had though before we developed into a civilized culture.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 06:42 PM

Capt Ann, is there any chance of you making a rational argument for your position? Or am I to just assume you're only capable of fallacies like appealing to majority, straw men, non-sequitors, and appealing to emotion? Do you actually have a valid reason for your belief, or are you full of PRATTS and misinformation like you seem to indicate with that ridiculous post of yours?

I'm sure you and your fellow theists think that your post was rather clever, but it seems you are ignorant of how irrational it was. You didn't have a single good point, you had fallacy after fallacy after sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization.

Please, now is the time to give a rational argument if you happen to have one.

Thaibxr, you're right, you did specifically say that your problem was with religion, and not with theism.

My point is, I know a handful of theists who none of your points apply to.

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 07:02 PM

....There is a sublime pleasure which exists in knowing that there is something out there bigger than you, me, or our petty concerns as mortals. ........ I suspect that CaptAnn has lived quite a full life in her opinion, and finding that relationship, if that's what she did, does probably play a big part of it.....Exactly. (Of course, as a happily-married woman, I can also say that the sex has been great, too! ;) )

aikiMac

26-Jul-2005, 07:05 PM

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 07:08 PM

Exactly. (Of course, as a happily-married woman, I can also say that the sex has been great, too! ;) )

good for you then. but surely there are things, i mean, your wedding day, your honey moon. ect. a particular birthday, an anniversary. something. to think that you derive more joy from such a claim than you do from memorable events such as that, or longstanding relationships or ideals is a little strange to say the least.

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 07:10 PM

Socra dude, please consider your salesmanship. One could easily take your post as pious foolish snobbery. Come now, post #25 by Capt Ann was a quote from our very own infamous evangelist for atheism, with a few words changed to illustrate the flaws in what he said.

The point hes making is that their were none, and that you cannot apply the things she said, they just don't make sense, as much as i'd love to take credit for that one, it was Thaibxr's post originally. {but go ahead and associate me with it anyway} :D

aikiMac

26-Jul-2005, 07:13 PM

it was Thaibxr's post originally.
I stand corrected on who gets the credit.

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 07:15 PM

Capt Ann, is there any chance of you making a rational.....yada yada yada etc et al., rant Polite response: My comments were in direct response to this post: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=575300&postcount=11 (which even my favorite evangelical atheist online found at least a little clever ;) )

Less Polite Response: Oh, grow up and get a life! :D

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 07:23 PM

Oops! Seems like I've got some delay in my posts. Sorry, guys!

good for you then. but surely there are things, i mean, your wedding day, your honey moon. ect. a particular birthday, an anniversary. something. to think that you derive more joy from such a claim than you do from memorable events such as that, or longstanding relationships or ideals is a little strange to say the least.I do not derive any joy from any claim. I think what you're missing is that 'knowing God' is as real and as longstanding as any other relationship could possibly be, and the joy is derived from that. (Ever been so guts-out, crazy-in-love that all you want to do is be with someone, talk to them, walk with them, and enjoy life with them? Yeah, like that.)

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 07:29 PM

I think what you're missing is that 'knowing God' is as real and as longstanding as any other relationship could possibly be, and the joy is derived from that.

(Ever been so guts-out, crazy-in-love that all you want to do is be with someone, talk to them, walk with them, and enjoy life with them? Yeah, like that.)

How can you know god if he never talks back, never says a kind word, never actually helps you, never stops by for a visit, and never really puts off any kind of sense that he gives a rats ass?

I know what you mean. i had that once. that love, but how can you equate that to having a sense of godly presence?

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 07:30 PM

Polite response: My comments were in direct response to this post: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=575300&postcount=11 (which even my favorite evangelical atheist online found at least a little clever ;) )

Less Polite Response: Oh, grow up and get a life! :D

Translation = No, I do not have a single rational argument.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 07:35 PM

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 07:41 PM

Hence the reason it's called "faith". Lose the 'tude and stop insisting that everything has to be quantified based on your own little perception of the world around you. You guys are as bad as the Fundies trying to cram God down my throat with your "enlightenment" and "vision of the world".

Difference between we guys and fundies is we have reason on our side. Reason schmeason I'm sure you and others would say, but you say so out of an ignorance of the importance of logical thought.

As Nietzsche said, take a stroll through your local lunatic asylum if you want a good understanding of why faith is NOT an accurate measure of truth. You'll find plenty of people in there with beliefs and suspicions, none of which are supported by reason or evidence. And you would call them crazy! However when it comes to theists with their completely unsubstantiated beliefs, we call it faith.

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 07:45 PM

How can you know god if he never talks back, never says a kind word, never actually helps you, never stops by for a visit, and never really puts off any kind of sense that he gives a rats ass?

I know what you mean. i had that once. that love, but how can you equate that to having a sense of godly presence?Because it's not just a sense of His presence. And yes, in my life He actually has spoken back, and shown that He has cared, and has said many a kind word, and provided in many cases where there was no human way possible for a situation to work out.

BendzR

26-Jul-2005, 07:50 PM

Capt Ann, The Nazis were Christian as far as they saw themselves. Since Christian is defined by what you believe, and not what you do, so they arguably were infact Christians (even if they were very "bad" ones) and they were definitely not atheists.

"Survival of the Fittest" isn't just about the invidial organism when its a social animal.

The list of things you wrote had some major errors.

But you do raise an interesting point, regarding Atheism...

Some Atheists are so convinced there is definitely no God, and the lack of evidence as they see, is solid evidence for his non-existance, that they will probably not believe in God even if he showed himself to them undoubedtly as the true God of the universe.

Personally I think Atheism has a problem (at least as I've defined the above) in that it is almost a religion (in the faith sense).

I find it amusing how a lot of fervid atheists are ex-religion followers. It's as if they have stopped believing in what they use to, and now that its gone they need to fill the void with something else. They are supressed religios Atheist. Quite hypocritical in many cases.

If they don't have this zealously atheist belief (that they follow in almost faith-like fashion) then they start doubting themselves. As a result they become even more zealous because they do not wish to become doubtful. By becoming as zealous as possible, they reduce the odds of ever doubting their new found fullfillment and the fear of their possible incorrect believe is supressed even more.

This sort of belief is almost no different to religios fundamentalism in that it often has zealous evangelists.

These atheists are almost as irritating as the evangelist mormons that knock on your door. Instead of thinking they are saving others (to save themselves) they believe they are opening the eyes of others (to erase the doubt of their own open-eyes).

I use to fit this definition quite to a drop, until my psychologist girlfriend pointed this out. It rang so true, it really smacked me in the face. I had been quite annoying (after taking a long true look at myself) and realised i needed to sort out what I really believed and don't believed in.

Really, its quite annoying. I don't want to point a finger, and I don't think it's as binary as my post might suggest, but if you don't believe in God, then why make such a big fricken deal out of it ?

Back to the original question... I am very anti-religion (ex-Christian) and im very agnostic when it comes to whether there is a god or not. I believe that the existance of god is irrelevant anyways, as I do not see how it would effect my life.

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 07:52 PM

And yes, in my life He actually has spoken back, and shown that He has cared, and has said many a kind word, and provided in many cases where there was no human way possible for a situation to work out.

*sighs heavy and calls asylum* this is one of those cases where socrasteins timing was impeccable. :D

no offense there captain, but thats the kind of stuff people get locked up for. its kinda hard to take people seriously when they say things like that. A simple "look up you *****" would suffice. but nope. if he had anything important to say, i think he would have said it to us by now especially considering how much crap i give him and how many people i've "turned away" from him that he'd have the balls to strike me down or tell me to shut up.

BendzR

26-Jul-2005, 07:58 PM

He's so mad at you he's giving you the silent treatment! http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 07:59 PM

if you don't believe in God, then why make such a big fricken deal out of it ?

Because it is a big fricken deal, if you haven't noticed. Religion is EVERYWHERE, and as such ignorance has a strangle hold on the planet, and especially on America, and even more especially in the rural, largely fundamentalist state I live in.

Many people would not live their lives the way they do and treat other people the way they do if they didn't hold their religious beliefs. That's incentive to open their eyes, as you say. The movement to ban evolution from public schools is a scary and ridiculous one, it stems from incredible ignorance on the part of the fundamentalists and ID'ers who advocate it. That is a huge fricken deal, the destruction of scientific education by people who know nothing of the subject but have enough political power to ensure it isn't taught. Gay rights legislation should NOT be an issue, but it is, because religion and its irrational maxims have such a grip on the political authority in America and elsewhere. These kind of things drastically effect people's lives, this is not a matter of "to each there own" because religion very rarely stays completely personal. One's beliefs and thoughts dictate one's actions, and when you have people full of ignorance and irrationality, they're bound to do some ignorant and irrational things that are best avoided.

dormindo

26-Jul-2005, 08:00 PM

To take it away from the arguement for a sec--I'm not quite sure how I should answer the question. If by 'believe in God' you mean an old man in the sky, then I'd have to say no. But i do think that there is a 'primacy of consciousness' beyond what some would call the illusoriness of this life (seems real enough to me, though--especially in the down times);-)

I don't know if the words theist or spiritualist really encompass where I'm at. So I'll sum up as follows: I'm not into organized religion, but I think that something lies beneath.

ciao,

dormindo

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:01 PM

Do you have any reason for this belief? OP asked for belief and reason.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 08:02 PM

Difference between we guys and fundies is we have reason on our side. Reason schmeason I'm sure you and others would say, but you say so out of an ignorance of the importance of logical thought.

As Nietzsche said, take a stroll through your local lunatic asylum if you want a good understanding of why faith is NOT an accurate measure of truth. You'll find plenty of people in there with beliefs and suspicions, none of which are supported by reason or evidence. And you would call them crazy! However when it comes to theists with their completely unsubstantiated beliefs, we call it faith.

Yes, but the end result is the same. Petty and childish cries of "I'm right and you're wrong". Real frickin mature.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:04 PM

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 08:04 PM

He's so mad at you he's giving you the silent treatment! http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif

:D yeah, well he could always just kill me!? LOL!

Socrastein. as usual, *clap clap* on a brilliant post.

BendzR

26-Jul-2005, 08:05 PM

True, and I see your point.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you should just ignore the issue if you don't believe. That would be silly. Sorry if my post is unclear, I try write as best as I can, but Im not english-as-first-language and have a tendency to come across wrongly sometimes.

Although in some cases, I think especially if its evident you're not going to convince a religious person, then you should let it go.

I use to be so zealously atheist that I would bitch and moan (or at least thats how they saw it) that all I would acomplish was frustration and dislike in the people I was conversing.

Some times, its best to just let them be. If they are willing to come to their rational side, then good for them. Until then, it will take impossible efforts to convince them.

Atheists wasted hours on me when I was a strong Christian, and it did them zero good. Only when I personally decided on my own believes, did I geniunely change my tune.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 08:07 PM

I haven't heard any of those petty cries you speak of in this thread BaiKai. My "cries" have been "Give me a rational argument, anyone?". That's not childish in the least, it's quite reasonable in fact.

No, what you've done is give incessant shouts of "I want proof and you don't have any", which leads to the same rabid result. You've been quite rude, as well, with the constant descriptions of "irrational" and worse, "ignorant". But of course when faced with your own intolerance, you say "not me".

Kinjiro Tsukasa

26-Jul-2005, 08:12 PM

There is nothing mature about referring to someone else's religious beliefs as "ignorance". I'd like to not see any more of that in this thread.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:14 PM

Bendzr, I know exactly what you mean, I see your point very clearly now.

I understand the chances are astronomical that debating with a theist and laying the logical smack down on their attempts at arguments rarely does any good, especially when they can conveniently fall back on faith, that good 'ol "Nothing you say matters cause I'm right no matter what" gem that they love to sit on. However, the chances are still there. When I was a Christian, I didn't give a crap about evidence, or logic, or making sense. Everything was faith. However, the people who debated with me did NOT waste their time, even though they surely thought so. Every single time someone shot down my arguments, every time someone explained why faith is a piss poor measure of reality, it reached a part of me (A hideously deep part of course) and somewhere deep down I knew that they were right. They were planting seeds in me, seeds of doubt, seeds of truth, and even though it took many long months for them to sprout, they eventually did and my doubt and need to be rational overcame my fear and need for comfort and religion. That never would have happened if all those people who laid the smack on my beliefs had decided I was a waste of time.

So yeah, in my experience about 1/60 people or so will actually come to question their beliefs and rethink their irrational views when I discuss with them, but even if it was 1/200 it would still be worth it. And I can't discount the more subtle effects my discussions have on people. I may be influencing them in ways THEY don't even know, helping to fuel the potential of their one day coming to the side of reason and reality, just as one done for me years ago.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:17 PM

No, what you've done is give incessant shouts of "I want proof and you don't have any", which leads to the same rabid result. You've been quite rude, as well, with the constant descriptions of "irrational" and worse, "ignorant". But of course when faced with your own intolerance, you say "not me".

Rude? Maybe. Accurate? Most certainly. It's really quite simple - if you're NOT irrational, let me hear your rational arguments. If you have no rational arguments, then by definition you are being irrational in your beliefs. That's not directed specifically at you, that's directed at anyone and everyone who is offended by the word irrational, and yet fits it to a T.

If you have irrational beliefs and don't like being called irrational, then either buck up and take responsibility for your beliefs and the consequences of them, or adopt more logically consistent views.

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 08:17 PM

There is nothing mature about referring to someone else's religious beliefs as "ignorance". I'd like to not see any more of that in this thread.

while i think thats not much to ask. this is a clear valid example of what socrastein was talking about. if religion didn't have the death grip that it has on the world we wouldn't see this kind of a response from anyone, mod or otherwise. though socrastein, there is a big differance between "Ridiculous" "Irrational" and "Ignorant"

BendzR

26-Jul-2005, 08:18 PM

What if it is his religious belief to call others ignorant ?

If I said I know the earth is flat and that is my religious belief. Then it wouldn't be cool if he called me ignorant ?

I guess since you're the mod, and I am not. It doesn't really matter what I have to say, but to be honest, I believe anyone has the right to call someone else (myself included) ignorant. Since it is - by default - their opinion. Whether the person is ignorant or not, is outside the acusation.

It shouldn't be used in a malicious or insulting manner, I agree, but I do not think that is how Socrastein means, or believes it. People shouldn't be offended when their views are attacked. Attacking somesones view and attacking someone, is different.

But I guess that is just my opinion. http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/images/smilies/angel2.gif

dormindo

26-Jul-2005, 08:19 PM

Do you have any reason for this belief? OP asked for belief and reason.

I suppose that it would have to be that science, on certain levels, posits nonlocal connections between everything, the law of biogenesis (life begets life), energy not being created or destroyed. Seems to me that perhaps an organizing principle is at work.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in either a Heaven or Hell, an 'old man in the sky, or that the earth is 6,000 years old. But I think something is at work--what that means for me as an individual when I die, I don't know.

I'd also like to point out that my 'belief system', as it were is an ongoing, evolving thing and not a camp where I pitch my tent (not making accusations, just reminding everyone on both sides that our views, ideas and opinions are subject to constant tests--this thread being merely one. We may grow, with time, in our understandings--not even to suggest that we will change from one 'side' to the other, but that even our understanding of why we're at where we're at may change).

Okay, I'll stop boring everyone now.

ciao,

dormindo

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:19 PM

though socrastein, there is a big differance between "Ridiculous" "Irrational" and "Ignorant"

I know, and if at some point I accidentally equated them I apologize, I surely didn't mean to imply anywhere in my posts that they are all the same.

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 08:20 PM

regarding Atheism...BendzR, this was a very good, thoughtful post. I appreciate your honesty and openness.

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 08:23 PM

Difference between we guys and fundies is we have reason on our side.You grossly misjudge the power and place of logic in these discussions. Logic's sole benefit in a discussion of any philosophy is the ability to identify internal inconsistencies. (I.e., it can be used as a very good tool to decide what NOT to believe). Logical deductions are generally founded on if/then statements; i.e., you can derive conclusions only AFTER you have made a set of initial assumptions or postulates. The value of your conclusions are only as relevant as the range of validity of your set of initial assumptions.

Examples:

I can prove conclusively that absolute truth exists.
1. Postulate: Absolute truth does not exist.
2. Therefore, the above statement #1 cannot be universally true.
3. Therefore, at least one absolute truth exists.

I can use this to prove that there are an infinite number of absolutely true statements that do not contradict each other (i.e., there exists a consistent, universal truth.)
1. Assume there exists a set of n absolutely (universally, non-contradictory) true statements.
2. The statement, 'There are not at least n true statements' is false.
3. #2 above is the (n+1)th true statement.
4. Therefore, if there are n universally true statements, there must be n+1 universally true statements.
5. Since we have proven that one absolutely true statement exists, there must exist an infinite series of absolutley true, non-contradictory statements, by induction.

That, my friend, is logic, and it shows that you cannot logically adhere to any philosophy that denies the existence of truth (the same truth, absolute truth, universal truth) for all people.

Similarly, I can start with the assumption that there is no afterlife, and look at the conclusions that such an assumption demands. I and others have discussed those conclusions in other posts, if you are truly interested. The conclusions are completely unliveable and contrary to real-world experience (they don't work, and they don't measure up to what we see and experience in life--the only other tools we humans seem to agree we have to adjudge 'truth').

To summarize, I can use logic to show that truth exists, and that certain atheistic philosophies cannot be true. I have not yet found an internal inconsistency in belief in Jesus Christ (and I have looked!) Therefore, aside from Divine revelation, I am left with utilitarianism (does it work?) and personal experience (what have I seen/experienced?) to judge whether or not my belief system is rational and works. In short, it is and it does.

And Tekken, you asked for reason/proof of belief. I merely told you what I personally have seen and heard. What you do with the evidence provided is entirely up to you.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 08:24 PM

Yes, let's keep insulting people by calling their religions "ignorant" and "irrational".

In any other part of this forum, it's perfectly accpetable for a MOD to come aboard and tell people to knock off the personal insults, but because we're discussing religion you think it's ok to call someone ignorant and irrational? And that MODs who apply the rules fairly across the board are "in the death grip of religion". Tekken, do you like being sin-binned?!?

Edit: At least you guys are beginning to recognize the need to work on your delivery.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:26 PM

People shouldn't be offended when their views are attacked. Attacking somesones view and attacking someone, is different.

I agree. Apparently, that sentiment is not held by others, because I have very often been reprimanded for attacking people's beliefs and arguments.

And saying someone is ignorant is making an observation of a percieved lack of knowledge on the person's part, nothing more. If I called someone a damn ignorant fool, or something of the sort, then it becomes a purely malicious attack. It's like the difference between saying someone is fat because they are overweight and have a high body fat percentage, and just maliciously calling someone a lard-ass.

I suppose that it would have to be that science, on certain levels, posits nonlocal connections between everything, the law of biogenesis (life begets life), energy not being created or destroyed. Seems to me that perhaps an organizing principle is at work.

Nonlocal connections do not have anything to do with a unified conciousness, or a metaphysical energy, or any such thing. They are simply nonlocal connections, to read any further into this is to venture out of science and into mysticism and pseudo-science.

The law of biogenesis says that maggots do not sponteneously spawn from rotten meat, nor worms from wet dirt. It has NOTHING to do with saying simple replicating lifeforms can't possibly arise sponteneously through abiogenesis. There is no such thing as a law in science that says abiogenesis is impossible, whatever creationist source told you otherwise was lying.

Law of conservation of energy is not an absolute law, it's violated all the time on sufficiently small scales, as a necessary consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Even if it was an absolute, this would not prove that there were any supreme energies or beings at work. The deduction is an invalid one.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

26-Jul-2005, 08:27 PM

What if it is his religious belief to call others ignorant ?
Then you can't practice that particular brand of "religion" on this forum.

I guess since you're the mod, and I am not. It doesn't really matter what I have to say, but to be honest, I believe anyone has the right to call someone else (myself included) ignorant.
Not here, you don't!

Check out his excerpt from MAP terms of Service:

4.3 Abuse / Flaming / Derogatory Comments:
Abusive Comments, personal attacks, flaming, or derogatory insults or comments are strictly forbidden.
4.3.1 It is fine to disagree with another member’s point of view, but please do so in a mature and civil manner.
4.3.2 If someone posts to discuss their personal problems or seeks help from other forums members, please do not respond unless you have something positive or helpful to add.
4.3.3 If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator and let us handle it.

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 08:31 PM

In any other part of this forum, it's perfectly accpetable for a MOD to come aboard and tell people to knock off the personal insults, but because we're discussing religion you think it's ok to call someone ignorant and irrational? And that MODs who apply the rules fairly across the board are "in the death grip of religion". Tekken, do you like being sin-binned?!?

"you don't know what you are talking about" and "that makes no sense" are not personal attacks, come off it man. no one here has directly insulted anyone, no name calling at all. and why do you say that about me being binned, i have yet to do an name calling, any excessive swearing, any personal attacks, in fact, i'd say in comparison to my other discussions about religion, this is the smoothest one and the calmest i've stayed.
I didn't say that about Kinjiro, I AGREED WITH HER!!! i was making a point.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:39 PM

What's the difference between absolute truth and regular truth Ann? What have you proven by proving there is absolute truth? Anything significant, or have you just made it look signficant by throwing the word "absolute" in front truth as if it made it somehow more glorious.

Davey Bones

26-Jul-2005, 08:42 PM

*sighs heavy and calls asylum* this is one of those cases where socrasteins timing was impeccable. :D

That's to be considered polite when someone shared something special to them how? And no, a silly little smiley at the end doth not make it a joke.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 08:43 PM

4.3 Abuse / Flaming / Derogatory Comments:
Abusive Comments, personal attacks, flaming, or derogatory insults or comments are strictly forbidden.
4.3.1 It is fine to disagree with another member’s point of view, but please do so in a mature and civil manner.
4.3.2 If someone posts to discuss their personal problems or seeks help from other forums members, please do not respond unless you have something positive or helpful to add.
4.3.3 If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator and let us handle it.

I don't see how saying someone is lacking knowledge fits as an abusive comment, personal attack, flame, derogatory insult, or immature or incivil comment. Which one would it go under, and why? It's hard to follow the rules if you don't understand them, so if you could clearly and concisely explain why it's forbidden to observe a lack of knowledge on the part of poster I would greatly appreciate it.

Just to illustrate my point, I'm obviously ignorant of exactly how these rules work. If someone was to say "You're obviously ignorant of how the rules work" I'd say "Why yes I am, please help me to understand them" and I can't fathom how this would/should be seen as insulting.

tekkengod

26-Jul-2005, 08:47 PM

That's to be considered polite when someone shared something special to them how? And no, a silly little smiley at the end doth not make it a joke.

The smiley was for socrastein. not Ann. do you think she is in need of one? how about you? will that make you relax? i think your getting a little hung up on the ettiquette of an internet forum and not enough on the discussion at hand. here :D :D :D :D :D :D there. now everybody, all together now *WUSA* *breathe in....breathe out* never in a million years did I expect that I WOULD BE THE ONE calming people down and going back to topic. back to topic BKG. seriously. who cares if it was polite or if the smiley was misplaced? enjoy the conversation, heated debate, jokes, laughs, thoughts. thats what this place is about. so lets do that, ok. oh, just to be safe, heres another :D

Capt Ann

26-Jul-2005, 08:56 PM

What's the difference between absolute truth and regular truth Ann? Post-modernist philosophy (the default belief of most of our current generation in the West) is that absolute truth does not exist, and that if any truth exists, it is entirely relative and personal (as opposed to absolute and universal). I have shown that this must (logically) be false (but logic alone probably won't stop post-modernism from being the dominant philosophy in western culture).

What have you proven by proving there is absolute truth? Aside from showing that it exists, hopefully, it will encourage some people to look for it. If it is there, then there is at least the possibility that it might be known. For those that think that the issue of whether or not there is a God will never be decided, hopefully it demonstrates that it is not wrong or hopeless or foolish to ask the question and genuinely seek (even expect) an answer.

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 09:00 PM

dormindo

26-Jul-2005, 09:07 PM

Nonlocal connections do not have anything to do with a unified conciousness, or a metaphysical energy, or any such thing. They are simply nonlocal connections, to read any further into this is to venture out of science and into mysticism and pseudo-science.

The law of biogenesis says that maggots do not sponteneously spawn from rotten meat, nor worms from wet dirt. It has NOTHING to do with saying simple replicating lifeforms can't possibly arise sponteneously through abiogenesis. There is no such thing as a law in science that says abiogenesis is impossible, whatever creationist source told you otherwise was lying.

Law of conservation of energy is not an absolute law, it's violated all the time on sufficiently small scales, as a necessary consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Even if it was an absolute, this would not prove that there were any supreme energies or beings at work. The deduction is an invalid one.

But I believe the deductions are mostly yours, Socrastein. I can't say that I posit an impossibility for abiogenesis, I admit that I certainly don't know enough to speak to it in any confident manner--thus saving you the trouble of calling me ignorant ;-). I also did not get any idea for such an idea (indeed I did not have such an idea) from a creationist source. In fact, I have to laugh because it has been nearly twelve since I've attended any church, I attended that church for only a few years, and I did not grow up in a church.

I also do not suggest that the law of conservation PROVES the existence of a supreme energy at work, just that it suggests such--to me, at this juncture of my life.

Unified consciousness and metaphysical 'energy', perhaps that's what I'm grabbing at--though not in a New Agey fashion. Perhaps there is a 'primal'
consciousness that holds it all together. However, I don't see a man in the sky--perhaps for that alone I may be branded atheist or agnostic by some in the circles in which I travel.

My apologies if I seem rambling in this post. I have family here trying to get my attention.

ciao,

dormindo

Socrastein

26-Jul-2005, 09:10 PM

So basically, you just believe that there's a metaphysical conciousness/energy because it sounds good to you?

dormindo

26-Jul-2005, 09:50 PM

So basically, you just believe that there's a metaphysical conciousness/energy because it sounds good to you?

I suppose in a way that I am. Not simply 'sounds good', but sounds plausible to my way of thinking--if such a thing were to exist. I hold my beliefs not to be absolutes, but conclusions (and most likely, rather presumptive ones, no doubt) that I've come to in my own life and self-examination. And these are not written in stone, either. I see the world far differently than I did at 12, or 22, or 30 even.

I do appreciate the opportunity to talk about it with you, though.

ciao,

dormindo

Capt Keonig

27-Jul-2005, 04:31 AM

Please state yes or no and give a reason....

Me, I don't know if there is a higher being or not but I certainly do not believe in what most religions say about God. I guess If I had a religion it would be one where you look inside yourself for answers to whether what you are doing is right or wrong.

MY SENSE OF GOD IS MY SENSE OF WONDER ABOUT THE UNIVERSE
Albert Einstein

aikiMac

27-Jul-2005, 03:19 PM

Truth is a correspondance to fact/reality. As Aristotle so simply put it, "To speak truth is to say of what is, that it is, and to say of what is not, that it is not".

That being said, I still don't see the difference between truth and absolute truth, or mega truth, or super truth, or ultra-awesome truth. If proposition P corresponds to reality, P is true. It's that simple. So again, what exactly have you established with your post? You don't seem to have shown anything significant, but I may just be missing it somehow.
Yes, you do see the difference, or else you grossly exaggerated your credentials earlier in time and are now genuinely displaying ignorance of modern life. See, in a prior thread in the Philosophy forum you bragged about debating philosophy everyday and having some 5000 posts total on several forums where science and philosophy are discussed. And in a prior thread in the Philosophy forum you weighed in on what books are and are not philosophy books. Someone with those credentials -- hey, even someone without those credentials! -- knows the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth" as it applies to the subject at hand. That leaves us to wonder, were you exaggerating your credentials then, or are you trying now to distract us from the excellent point that Capt Ann made?

I'm pretty sure people spotted the excellent point that Capt Ann made, so trying to hide it might just be futile anyway.

Apparently, that sentiment is not held by others, because I have very often been reprimanded for attacking people's beliefs and arguments.
No, you've been reprimended for being rude. There's a dramatic difference. If you do not know the difference, then, respectfully, may I suggest that you interact with live people more often? People really do matter. When all is said and done and read and written, people are more important than scientific theories and other lofty thoughts. That which is important deserves respect. Think about that, okay?

tekkengod

27-Jul-2005, 03:27 PM

or are you trying now to distract us from the excellent point that Capt Ann made?

I'm pretty sure people spotted the excellent point that Capt Ann made, so trying to hide it might just be futile anyway

I spotted it, it was clever, kinda cute, made me laugh a bit!

Thing is though, it made about as much sense as putting your head in a plane prop. it didn't apply at all, all she did was replace the words "christans" or "religious" with "Atheists" I admit it was funny, good try but pointless. it was an attempt to distract us from Thaibxrs original brilliant post.

LittleGirlBlue

27-Jul-2005, 03:50 PM

OH MY GOODNESS these threads are so tempting... I just cant get into this...I cant get into this... I cant get into this...

I cant keep myself out of political discussions, I just cant, but I think im being rational about them...these religious ones though.... must ...stay...away...(accept for maybe one or two polite posts in the beginning before it gets nasty :) )

aikiMac

27-Jul-2005, 04:18 PM

I spotted it, it was clever, kinda cute, made me laugh a bit!

Thing is though, it made about as much sense as putting your head in a plane prop. it didn't apply at all, all she did was replace the words "christans" or "religious" with "Atheists" ...
I was referring to post #79. That's the one regarding "absolute truth."

Kinjiro Tsukasa

27-Jul-2005, 04:43 PM

I don't see how saying someone is lacking knowledge fits as an abusive comment, personal attack, flame, derogatory insult, or immature or incivil comment. Which one would it go under, and why? It's hard to follow the rules if you don't understand them, so if you could clearly and concisely explain why it's forbidden to observe a lack of knowledge on the part of poster I would greatly appreciate it.

Just to illustrate my point, I'm obviously ignorant of exactly how these rules work. If someone was to say "You're obviously ignorant of how the rules work" I'd say "Why yes I am, please help me to understand them" and I can't fathom how this would/should be seen as insulting.
OK, to make a long story short: The fact that someone's religious belief (or lack thereof) differs from yours (or from anyone else's) does not in any way equal a "lack of knowledge" -- that is just your opinion. It's not the same as trying to correct someone who thinks that 2 + 2 = 5.

Religion isn't math, and it isn't science.

I might be able to say that a person is ignorant if he believes that the world is flat, but it would not be right to call that person ignorant because he worships differently than I do (or not at all).

I hope that helps. :)

Socrastein

27-Jul-2005, 08:46 PM

Yes, you do see the difference, or else you grossly exaggerated your credentials earlier in time and are now genuinely displaying ignorance of modern life. See, in a prior thread in the Philosophy forum you bragged about debating philosophy everyday and having some 5000 posts total on several forums where science and philosophy are discussed. And in a prior thread in the Philosophy forum you weighed in on what books are and are not philosophy books. Someone with those credentials -- hey, even someone without those credentials! -- knows the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth" as it applies to the subject at hand. That leaves us to wonder, were you exaggerating your credentials then, or are you trying now to distract us from the excellent point that Capt Ann made?

In my experience debating philosophy, I've come to realize that "absolute" truth is a very popular, and completely pointless, term. Truth is truth, if proposition P corresponds to fact, it's true. There are no measures or degrees of truth, there isn't half-absolute truth, and sorta solid truth, or any such nonsense. Either a statement corresponds to reality, or it does not, simple as that, which leaves TRUE, and FALSE. "Absolute" is a ridiculous quantifier.

OK, to make a long story short: The fact that someone's religious belief (or lack thereof) differs from yours (or from anyone else's) does not in any way equal a "lack of knowledge" -- that is just your opinion. It's not the same as trying to correct someone who thinks that 2 + 2 = 5.

I never equated difference of opinion with lack of knowledge anywhere in this thread. So while I agree with your point, I don't see how it's relevent.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

27-Jul-2005, 09:06 PM

I never equated difference of opinion with lack of knowledge anywhere in this thread. So while I agree with your point, I don't see how it's relevent.
Check out your posts # 58 & 63 in this thread. Between the two of them, you used "ignorant" or "ignorance" six times in referring to religious belief. If you target a specific person, it's a personal attack. If you don't, it's still inflammatory. Either way, not acceptable.

Socrastein

27-Jul-2005, 09:29 PM

Post #58, I say that someone with no respect for reason is someone who is ignorant of how important logical thought is. Don't see how that's equating difference of opinion with ignorance.

Post #63, I mention the ignorance of the religious, and then give the specific example of the movement to ban evolution. I've never known someone who actually both clearly understood evolution, and still denied it. The people who fight against it use fallacious arguments, false evidence, and straw men of what evolution and science actually are: they fight against it out of ignorance. Once again, that is not equating difference of opinion with a lack of knowledge, that's equating a lack of knowledge with a lack of knowledge, A=A.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

27-Jul-2005, 09:40 PM

Post #58, I say that someone with no respect for reason is someone who is ignorant of how important logical thought is. Don't see how that's equating difference of opinion with ignorance.
In that post, you accused BaiKaiGuy of being ignorant of the importance of logical thought. That is your opinion, and a personal attack.

Post #63, I mention the ignorance of the religious, and then give the specific example of the movement to ban evolution. I've never known someone who actually both clearly understood evolution, and still denied it. The people who fight against it use fallacious arguments, false evidence, and straw men of what evolution and science actually are: they fight against it out of ignorance. Once again, that is not equating difference of opinion with a lack of knowledge, that's equating a lack of knowledge with a lack of knowledge, A=A.
What you said in this post was inflammatory, and if you can't see that, then I'm afraid there's not much I can do. Just be a little more careful how you word your opinions, OK? That is, if you want the thread to stay open.

hadou-ken

27-Jul-2005, 09:51 PM

i personally don't believe in god. we created god, god didn't create us

Socrastein

27-Jul-2005, 10:12 PM

This was removed for a reason, not the least of which is that is was abrasive and off-topic. Please don't keep re-posting it.

Maverick

28-Jul-2005, 05:29 AM

Post-modernist philosophy (the default belief of most of our current generation in the West) is that absolute truth does not exist, and that if any truth exists, it is entirely relative and personal (as opposed to absolute and universal). I have shown that this must (logically) be false

Well actually no, you didn't.

It's not the same as trying to correct someone who thinks that 2 + 2 = 5.

I might be able to say that a person is ignorant if he believes that the world is flat, but it would not be right to call that person ignorant because he worships differently than I do (or not at all).

Actually Kinjiro I don't think there's a difference at all.

In fact I see very little difference between believing the world is flat and believing in God. They're both irrational and unsubstantial claims. Religious people won't agree on this of course. But that's besides the point.

Strafio

28-Jul-2005, 11:15 AM

What are you on about?

We've gone "around" the world, kind of proving that it's round.
Can you do the same to the "lack of God"?
All the reason you need to believe in God is that there are somethings that modern science can't explain. Now what's so irrational about that?

Strafio

28-Jul-2005, 11:32 AM

Examples:

I can prove conclusively that absolute truth exists.
1. Postulate: Absolute truth does not exist.
2. Therefore, the above statement #1 cannot be universally true.
3. Therefore, at least one absolute truth exists.

I can use this to prove that there are an infinite number of absolutely true statements that do not contradict each other (i.e., there exists a consistent, universal truth.)
1. Assume there exists a set of n absolutely (universally, non-contradictory) true statements.
2. The statement, 'There are not at least n true statements' is false.
3. #2 above is the (n+1)th true statement.
4. Therefore, if there are n universally true statements, there must be n+1 universally true statements.
5. Since we have proven that one absolutely true statement exists, there must exist an infinite series of absolutley true, non-contradictory statements, by induction.

That, my friend, is logic, and it shows that you cannot logically adhere to any philosophy that denies the existence of truth (the same truth, absolute truth, universal truth) for all people.

Okies, point made. Obviously there is an absolute truth as things have happened so they must be true. What people mean is no one has grasp complete and absolute truth. Those statements there kind of proved themselves to be true, more like word puzzles.

When people talk about there being no "absolute" truth, it's when someone claims to know something that happened, or something that is better than everybody else. I guess there's a minute chance that they've managed to get everything right (similar to the chance of them being absolutely sinless) but there's no way to be sure. And people accept that what seems true to them seems very different to someone else.

So yes, there are absolute truths around (especially in maths) but realistically no one's truth is absolute but merely what seems true to them, so it's personal. If someone says "it's true for you", it's their way of saying "I'm not going to argue that you're wrong, because if I was looking through your eyes then maybe I'd feel the same way, but through my eyes it's more or less nonsense!".

And you could say that it's possible that one of them has it all right and one of them has it all wrong (see above for probability :)) but realistically it tends to be that everyone has it a little bit right and no one has it completely right.
So that's what people mean when they say there's no absolute truth. :)

To summarize, I can use logic to show that truth exists, and that certain atheistic philosophies cannot be true. I have not yet found an internal inconsistency in belief in Jesus Christ (and I have looked!) Therefore, aside from Divine revelation, I am left with utilitarianism (does it work?) and personal experience (what have I seen/experienced?) to judge whether or not my belief system is rational and works. In short, it is and it does.

Now no ones going to argue with that.
So long as no one assumes that everyone's supposed to come to the same conclusion that your personal experience did. ;)

aikiMac

28-Jul-2005, 04:08 PM

So that's what people mean when they say there's no absolute truth.
Let's go with that. The question then is, Who is proclaiming more truth? And then, who is proclaiming the most truth? And how much truth can I even know?

Fair enough. To answers these, we'll need to find an objective measuring rod, I suppose. But at least we've agreed that there is truth out there for us to find. That's an excellent place to start, the agreement that there is truth for us to find.

jonmonk

28-Jul-2005, 04:35 PM

Let's go with that. The question then is, Who is proclaiming more truth? And then, who is proclaiming the most truth? And how much truth can I even know?

Fair enough. To answers these, we'll need to find an objective measuring rod, I suppose. But at least we've agreed that there is truth out there for us to find. That's an excellent place to start, the agreement that there is truth for us to find.I believe there is truth for us to find but not necessarily
'out there'. I think that without understanding truth 'in here' there can be no truth 'out there'... or maybe the other way round. Perhaps we can all proclaim the truth and still the truth is different for each of us. I wonder why we need absolute truth anyway? :)

Maverick

29-Jul-2005, 02:08 AM

What are you on about?

We've gone "around" the world, kind of proving that it's round.
Can you do the same to the "lack of God"?

You can't disprove an illogical entity, but the burden of proof lies with the religious to prove God's existence, not the other way round.

To me there is no evidence suggesting either the flatness of the world or the existence of a God. Therefore both are equally irrational and we should either call them both ignorant, or neither.

All the reason you need to believe in God is that there are somethings that modern science can't explain. Now what's so irrational about that?

Well that's not a very good reason really is it? Just because "Science" has not charted every square millimetre of the entire universe, we should make up a God?

Conversely I think most people believe in God not because there are things science can't explain, but because their parents told them to.

tekkengod

29-Jul-2005, 02:56 AM

All the reason you need to believe in God is that there are somethings that modern science can't explain. Now what's so irrational about that?

Thats the most irrational thing i've ever heard, and its that kind of default "i don't want answers" thinking process that allows religion to fester, feed and tighten its grip on the world. do you know how that would sound if you said it out loud? go on, do it. "Science can't prove this in all its entierty at exactly this very second without a shadow of a doubt with 100% validity, so its automatically Gods work" Funny thing is, thats what people used to say about earthquakes and lightning, but now we know better, why? because science answered the questions behind things that were once acts of god, with FACTS, using logic {but don't say that word at a religious gathering, they'll stone you} and as science continues to answer questions, the need for a "god" becomes less and less real, as my famous sig used to say "as knowladge advances, God retreats" As Maverick so accurately said "you can't prove the existance of an illogical deity"

tekkengod

29-Jul-2005, 02:57 AM

Conversely I think most people believe in God not because there are things science can't explain, but because their parents told them to.

More of the vicious cycle of that wonderful Methodical imposed brainwashing. what a way to get followers.

ManabiMashoMan

29-Jul-2005, 04:36 AM

Religion is such a touchy topic in America, only in our country and the soviet union can you find so many who don't believe in god. People blame T.V. and Music but I blame society as a whole.

We are taught a young age that magic is not real, and that miracles are considence. We are taught that having preminations of a disaster is evil and the mark of Satan or sin. We are taught that we are just human and that if God does exist why doesn't he just show up and say so.

I personaly am glad that so many teach this, they grow up blind and deaf and with no clue they will never reach the peeks of enlightenment that few have seen. Instead of argueing that Jesus or God are real, how about just acting as They teach you should act. Don't preach about miracles, and stories, and heaven or hell. Show the people!

To the few who understood - your only lost from your path if say you quit

Strafio

29-Jul-2005, 12:15 PM

You can't disprove an illogical entity, but the burden of proof lies with the religious to prove God's existence, not the other way round.
If we're trying to convince you then yes, we need to prove to you.
To believe, people only need enough reasons for themselves to believe and these reasons don't have to be based on scientific fact to be good reasons.
If they contradicted science then there might be a problem but for most people they don't.

To me there is no evidence suggesting either the flatness of the world or the existence of a God. Therefore both are equally irrational and we should either call them both ignorant, or neither.
So it would be irrational for you to believe in these things as you see no evidence for either. If I saw evidence for both you could show me proof of the round world and I'd have to give up the "world is flat" belief.

Also, people have their reasons for believing in God. The reasons will most likely be personal, based on experiences that you wouldn't believe yourself but weren't you one of the ones arguing that there isn't an "absolute truth", so why are you going around trying to tell people what is and isn't rational or logical?

Well that's not a very good reason really is it? Just because "Science" has not charted every square millimetre of the entire universe, we should make up a God?
Yeah, I thought that the guy was hiding in the hubble telescope's blind spot...
There are some things, some phenomena that science can't explain. Somethings you experience in life don't have a scientific explanation.

Conversely I think most people believe in God not because there are things science can't explain, but because their parents told them to.
I guess I can't speak for everyone but I know that's not the case for me. And I know a lot of people who'd say he only disbelieves because the 'scientists' told him to. Assuming that people who think differently to you have been brain-washed is weak, man.

Strafio

29-Jul-2005, 12:30 PM

Thats the most irrational thing i've ever heard, and its that kind of default "i don't want answers" thinking process that allows religion to fester, feed and tighten its grip on the world.
For someone who hates how religion tells people how to believe, you're a little preachy on what people should and shouldn't be thinking. You want to stamp out religion? Sounds like you're trying to put your own grip on the world. You're just like all those religous fanatics, just wearing a different "uniform" if you will...

do you know how that would sound if you said it out loud? go on, do it. "Science can't prove this in all its entierty at exactly this very second without a shadow of a doubt with 100% validity, so its automatically Gods work"
Did I say that? I'm going to find it hard taking you seriously if you start trolling me. What I said is that there are some things in life that you experience that aren't necessarily explained by science. Is it irrational for someone to find another explanation for it?
Yes, I know that such reasoning isn't good enough to expect you to believe but everyone has their own truth. You were one of the ones arguing how there isn't this absolute truth, but you're still telling people what they should and shouldn't be believing?

You talk about how it winds you up when people insist that "You need Jesus! You need to be saved from damnation!!!" and yeah, they wind me up too. It also winds me up how you then go on to copy them, word for word (except changing "Jesus" to "Science" and "damnation" to "ignorance") and start preaching the same way. For someone who hates religious zealots, you seem to have copied their style to the tee! :p

tekkengod

29-Jul-2005, 08:31 PM

1. For someone who hates how religion tells people how to believe, you're a little preachy on what people should and shouldn't be thinking. You want to stamp out religion? Sounds like you're trying to put your own grip on the world. You're just like all those religous fanatics, just wearing a different "uniform" if you will...

2. You were one of the ones arguing how there isn't this absolute truth, but you're still telling people what they should and shouldn't be believing?

3. You talk about how it winds you up when people insist that "You need Jesus! You need to be saved from damnation!!!" and yeah, they wind me up too. It also winds me up how you then go on to copy them, word for word (except changing "Jesus" to "Science" and "damnation" to "ignorance") and start preaching the same way. For someone who hates religious zealots, you seem to have copied their style to the tee! :p

My argument isn't for the total eradication of religion, (although that would be nice) my argument is for promoting questioning your beliefs and disproving stories similar to that of what you would hear from someone recovering from a drug OD induced coma. (the bible)

2. No i wasn't. i was there, but when the argument shifted i kinda backed out. Its funny how you say "belief" and the fact that Maverick and I have coined the phrase "Methodical imposed brain-washing" seems to get to you, are you going to try and tell me that organized religion has NOT brainwashed children in the past, present and will continue to do so in the future? try taking a person in their 20's, graduated from high-school and collage both, a normal person, who has never been taught about religion, nor evolution, then have someone pitch both sides of the argument to him seperately, which one do you think is more appealing and easier to accept.....

3. Its really sad to see people act and think in such an illogical manner, to think that a relationship with an invisable man who lives in the sky and dosen't talk, could be someones greatest joy, tells me that the world is in a big rut.

Maverick

29-Jul-2005, 08:45 PM

So it would be irrational for you to believe in these things as you see no evidence for either. If I saw evidence for both you could show me proof of the round world and I'd have to give up the "world is flat" belief.

Yes you would but unfortunately you can't show that God isn't there (this is logically impossible) because God by it's very nature is usually intangible and undisprovable. So "science" could explain every known phenomena in the universe, and chart a complete map of the universe, yet this would not stop people believing in God because as I said it would not disprove such an irrational entity, as such an entity is immune to rational criticism.

Also, people have their reasons for believing in God. The reasons will most likely be personal, based on experiences that you wouldn't believe yourself but weren't you one of the ones arguing that there isn't an "absolute truth", so why are you going around trying to tell people what is and isn't rational or logical?

Well I think most people's reason (read 'most' as 99.9%+) for believing in one of the Big Three is that their parents did and indoctrinated them at an early age.

I don't believe in 'absolute truth' in a religious sense, but of course some things are true and some things aren't, ie. the colour red is red, because it holds true for everyone. One day we may find out it's a huge conspiracy by an alien race and that the colour red doesn't actually exist, but the improbability of such an event makes it 'true' beyond reasonable doubt.

Yeah, I thought that the guy was hiding in the hubble telescope's blind spot...
There are some things, some phenomena that science can't explain. Somethings you experience in life don't have a scientific explanation.

Like what? And this doesn't refute my point, that the mere existence of some unexplainable phenomena is no reason to proclaim 'God did it' when there's no valid reason to. Thousands of years ago, in our relatively simply societes we invented a God for everything we didn't understand which fascinated us, the sun God, the God of Death, God of the earth, God of the heavens, God of animals, etc etc. It was quite pointless of course but we know better now, well most of us do.

I guess I can't speak for everyone but I know that's not the case for me. And I know a lot of people who'd say he only disbelieves because the 'scientists' told him to. Assuming that people who think differently to you have been brain-washed is weak, man.

So you disagree that at least 9/10 religious people 'happen' to have religious parents? I'm sorry that doesn't wash. Consider the amount of religious people who converted from atheism/agnosticism, it will be a pathetic amount compared to ones who got it from their parents. Which suggests something to me, that religion would not survive without parental indoctrination.

To say 'he only disbelieves because the scientists told him to' is a feeble argument considering "scientists" come in all flavours and none of them have the job of indoctrinating children by telling them 'God doesn't exist'. No, they deal in facts and rational theories and teach children only about things like biology, chemistry, things we know about.

You seem to have a misconception that there is some war between "Science" and religion, unfortunately this is not true either, science is merely a method of investigating things that requires them to be rationally proved, "science" does not have a representative body and "science" boasts religious scientists as well as atheist ones.

aikiMac

29-Jul-2005, 10:14 PM

... because as I said it would not disprove such an irrational entity, as such an entity is immune to rational criticism. [speaking of God]
What's your definition of "irrational" and "rational"?
Not a trick question. The way you are using these words does not coincide with the definition of the words that I know.

And then I read these next two paragraphs where you mix together science and rational and religious people, and my confusion triples:
To say 'he only disbelieves because the scientists told him to' is a feeble argument considering "scientists" come in all flavours and none of them have the job of indoctrinating children by telling them 'God doesn't exist'. No, they deal in facts and rational theories and teach children only about things like biology, chemistry, things we know about.

You seem to have a misconception that there is some war between "Science" and religion, unfortunately this is not true either, science is merely a method of investigating things that requires them to be rationally proved, "science" does not have a representative body and "science" boasts religious scientists as well as atheist ones.

Strafio

29-Jul-2005, 11:09 PM

My argument isn't for the total eradication of religion, (although that would be nice) my argument is for promoting questioning your beliefs and disproving stories similar to that of what you would hear from someone recovering from a drug OD induced coma. (the bible)
Encourage them to question them by plain telling them they're wrong? Or irrational? Or ignorant? And if you haven't noticed there's a whole thread's worth of questioning Judgement in this forum.

are you going to try and tell me that organized religion has NOT brainwashed children in the past, present and will continue to do so in the future?
Yes, religion has been abused. I don't get why that causes you to tag every person who believes in God as brainwashed. What makes you think I'm brainwashed?
The thing is, religion isn't the issue.
Brainwashing is. Yes, religion can be used for brainwashing as can patriotism (that's been a lot more abused nowdays) and anything else that has a feeling of "belonging" or anything.

Secondly, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean a religion.
Yeah, some people look to religions to ask what God is like but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in God is told what to believe.

Come on, think it over...

Strafio

29-Jul-2005, 11:17 PM

You seem to have a misconception that there is some war between "Science" and religion
Not at all. I used that statement because people on the "other side" often accuse "scientists" of brainwashing with "anti-religious doctrines" (just to show that the "brainwashing argument" goes both ways) and secondly because I thought that by "irrational" you mean there's no scientific reason to believe in God?

Anysway, you'd need to explain what you mean by irrational before we go on...

pulp fiction

30-Jul-2005, 04:37 AM

I don't believe in church, in god I don't know. But I'm a scientist so many times I believe there is no god.

This debates are never going to end, so as religious wars. So it would be nice if we all go by the motto of live and let live.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

30-Jul-2005, 04:43 AM

This debates are never going to end, so as religious wars. So it would be nice if we all go by the motto of live and let live.
"Amen" to that! :D

mhyst

30-Jul-2005, 04:51 AM

I do.

tekkengod

30-Jul-2005, 07:33 AM

Encourage them to question them by plain telling them they're wrong? Or irrational? Or ignorant? And if you haven't noticed there's a whole thread's worth of questioning Judgement in this forum.

Yes, religion has been abused. I don't get why that causes you to tag every person who believes in God as brainwashed. What makes you think I'm brainwashed?
The thing is, religion isn't the issue.
Brainwashing is. Yes, religion can be used for brainwashing as can patriotism (that's been a lot more abused nowdays) and anything else that has a feeling of "belonging" or anything.

Secondly, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean a religion.
Yeah, some people look to religions to ask what God is like but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in God is told what to believe.

Come on, think it over...

Encouraging them to question, by exposing them to {not force feeding them} other, diffrent, more firmly founded beliefs {of all flavors} and the beauty of inductive reasoning and rational thought process. It causes me to "tag" every person with that, because weather or not they admit it {no one likes to admit being wrong or being manipulated} 9 times out of 10, I'm right. look at what maverick said. poll some people, you'll find a massively large number of people will say that their parents were also religious. Religion is famous for a few things, one of which is brainwashing. on the 3rd part i can partially agree. I notice you didn't reply to the other part of my post, which indicates you know i'm right.

Strafio

30-Jul-2005, 09:48 AM

Encouraging them to question, by exposing them to {not force feeding them} other, diffrent, more firmly founded beliefs {of all flavors}
Okies. That's a very PC way of putting yourself across, but I've never heard you come across with beliefs of your own, just crunch God believers.
And when you say all flavours, you mean just the ones that don't believe in God? Don't assume that all God believers are Christians either, a lot of people who believe in God don't necessarily think that any religion has got a proper measure of the guy.

and the beauty of inductive reasoning and rational thought process.
And what makes you think that they've got no reasoning and rational thought? Because they came to a different conclusion to you?
They're just approaching things from another angle.

Religion is famous for a few things, one of which is brainwashing.
Well, whether your beliefs include a God or not you seem to preach them very religiously. Wouldn't the opposite of "attempted brainwash" would be to let people believe what they want to? Incase you haven't noticed I've not got any problem with your beliefs and I'm not expecting you to believe anything in particular. You're the one trying to tell me that "rational thinkers believe in <insert belief here - in this case "There Is No God">".

And yes, I've had Christians give me books that have their own opinion what a "rational thinker" ought to believe... :rolleyes:

I notice you didn't reply to the other part of my post, which indicates you know i'm right.
Meh! I could've answered it all but I was trying to keep it concise. :)

Anysway, we could go on forever, so I'll cut to the chase.
You've seen me on these boards and you've read my posts, some you've agreed with, some you haven't. So now you know I believe that there's some sort of God, in what way do you think I'm brainwashed?

tekkengod

30-Jul-2005, 05:25 PM

1. Okies. That's a very PC way of putting yourself across, but I've never heard you come across with beliefs of your own, just crunch God believers.

2.And when you say all flavours, you mean just the ones that don't believe in God? Don't assume that all God believers are Christians either, a lot of people who believe in God don't necessarily think that any religion has got a proper measure of the guy.

3.And what makes you think that they've got no reasoning and rational thought? Because they came to a different conclusion to you?
They're just approaching things from another angle.

4. Well, whether your beliefs include a God or not you seem to preach them very religiously. Wouldn't the opposite of "attempted brainwash" would be to let people believe what they want to? Incase you haven't noticed I've not got any problem with your beliefs and I'm not expecting you to believe anything in particular. You're the one trying to tell me that "rational thinkers believe in <insert belief here - in this case "There Is No God">".

5. And yes, I've had Christians give me books that have their own opinion what a "rational thinker" ought to believe... :rolleyes:

6.Meh! I could've answered it all but I was trying to keep it concise. :)

Anysway, we could go on forever, so I'll cut to the chase.
You've seen me on these boards and you've read my posts, some you've agreed with, some you haven't. So now you know I believe that there's some sort of God, in what way do you think I'm brainwashed?

1. I have my own beliefs I've stated them before.

2. When i say all flavors, i mean all flavors, christianity, catholicisim, buddisim, hiduisim, neo paxisim, agnostisisim, Atheisim, Judaisim, creationisim, evolution, the works. If ypu take a strong person, with no prior brainwashing or attempt on any of the above religions, Its not hard to see where the decision lies.

3. They might, but when your dealing with a belief like that, its kind of hard not to question their use of it.

4. as i said, i would expose, not force feed.

5. I can only imagine how horrible that must have been.

Shantari

30-Jul-2005, 05:27 PM

I do, i have experienced things that prove it(atleast to me)

Maverick

30-Jul-2005, 05:41 PM

Strafio

30-Jul-2005, 06:03 PM

Hmmm...
I could settle for that, but maybe the fact that otherwise reasonable people believe in it might hint that it's not that irrational.

2. When i say all flavors, i mean all flavors, christianity, catholicisim, buddisim, hiduisim, neo paxisim, agnostisisim, Atheisim, Judaisim, creationisim, evolution, the works. If ypu take a strong person, with no prior brainwashing or attempt on any of the above religions, Its not hard to see where the decision lies.
So you're basically assuming that if someone thinks right then they'll think the same way that you do. But hey, you think how you think, just like the rest of us. No point in arguing over that. :)

Maverick

30-Jul-2005, 07:39 PM

Hmmm...
I could settle for that, but maybe the fact that otherwise reasonable people believe in it might hint that it's not that irrational.

Indoctrination explains that matter.

Sheyja

30-Jul-2005, 08:01 PM

Whatever you know is true, is, and whatever you know is not true, is not. Regardless of different opinions, you will never be able to disprove each other, because you're always right, even when you contradict.
It's the old classic "There is no truth" which requires you to let go of the idea of truth and falsity in order to grasp the concept.

tekkengod

30-Jul-2005, 10:02 PM

Indoctrination explains that matter.

EXACTLY!

tekkengod

30-Jul-2005, 10:06 PM

Hmmm...
I could settle for that, but maybe the fact that otherwise reasonable people believe in it might hint that it's not that irrational.

So you're basically assuming that if someone thinks right then they'll think the same way that you do. But hey, you think how you think, just like the rest of us. No point in arguing over that. :)

INDOCTERNATION!!! BRAINWASHING!!!!

If someone hasn't been done in by either of the above, granted they are smart, reasonable, and strong. and you give a reasonable option between the 2, and you educate them on both, its not hard to see how and why they wouldn't be very interested in religion. let alone christianity or catholicisim.

Hiroji

30-Jul-2005, 10:26 PM

In some people having faith in god is a good thing. My step-grandma had a breakdown, and it was her faith in god that kept her going and getting back right.

I myself dont believe in god or Karma or the whole "things happen for a reason" thing. I dont oppose people that do. I think life is hard to get through, and if faith helps you get through then good. I just believe when your dead your nothing, just like before you were born. I think we run around like rats trying to get ahead in life when in the end it means nothing really.

Maverick

30-Jul-2005, 11:15 PM

Good points Hiroji, I agree with all of them.

One might think that as a determinist, moral relativist Atheist, I lead a boring, depressing and unfulfilling life. Well, I do try :D

Hiroji

30-Jul-2005, 11:26 PM

Good points Hiroji, I agree with all of them.

One might think that as a determinist, moral relativist Atheist, I lead a boring, depressing and unfulfilling life. Well, I do try :D

Hell no you cant live a boring, depressing and unfulfilling life, your the maverick dude!!. Great balls of fire!! mother goose you p***y!

Socrastein

31-Jul-2005, 06:27 PM

I could settle for that, but maybe the fact that otherwise reasonable people believe in it might hint that it's not that irrational.

Non-sequitur, of the diversion variety. Same as saying that Bill Clinton couldn't have lied under oath, because he had a good economic plan for the US. Bill's economic policies have nothing to do with whether or not he lied about his sexual relations, and that Joe Christian is good at geometric deductions has nothing to do with whether or not his theistic beliefs are irrational.

Instead of hints, let's settle for nothing less than logical proof and/or empirical evidence. Like I've said numerous times in this thread, if theism isn't irrational, then I would love to hear a rational argument for the existence of a supreme being. It should be logically sound and parsimonious of course. Instead of all this talk of the religious just seeing things from a different angle, and to each his own, and all that jazz, let's see something substantial.

Many theists don't like to hear that their views are irrational. There could be two good reasons they don't like it - because they think it's not true, or because they hate to think they hold illogical views. If it's the former, the please, somebody show that it's false and provide rational argumentation. If it's the latter, then either learn to accept that your beliefs are illogical, or adopt a more logically consistent worldview.

tekkengod

31-Jul-2005, 06:31 PM

If it's the latter, then either learn to accept that your beliefs are illogical, or adopt a more logically consistent worldview.

THANKYOU!

tekkengod

31-Jul-2005, 06:34 PM

Good points Hiroji, I agree with all of them.

One might think that as a determinist, moral relativist Atheist, I lead a boring, depressing and unfulfilling life. Well, I do try :D

oh i know, we don't know god so our lives are pointless!!!

Facts are so boring right!! :D

Strafio

31-Jul-2005, 06:58 PM

tekkengod

31-Jul-2005, 07:45 PM

So does irrational just mean not logically proven?
People have good reasons for believing in God, even if their "experiences" could have other psychological interpretations...

I guess the word "irrational" is usually used in extreme cases so it might sound insulting to be called so. And what's illogical? Is it a complete lack of logic or merely imperfect logic? If it's the latter then I've no shame in using my intuition in this complex world.
If it's the former, faith isn't illogical. :)

There is no possible way to argue that faith in god is not illogical.

the word "irrational" is used in many cases, not all of them are so "extreme" if your irrational, your irrational. know it, change it. its not hard to identify.

if your being Illogical, thats a problem of though process and possibly a phsycological issue for which you should seek immediate professional help.

Strafio

31-Jul-2005, 11:03 PM

tekkengod

01-Aug-2005, 02:24 AM

Hang on, answer the question first.
Does illogical mean "logically flawed" or "a complete lack of logic"?

If it's the second one then belief in God isn't illogical.
Sure, it's not 100% sounds but there's a complete "mythology" that somehow adds up, combined with "experiences" that might have coincidental "rational" explanations or not.
If it's the first one then you can't rely on everything in this world to be perfectly logic. It's too complex for that.

So TG, do you fancy yourself a bit of a vulcan? ;)

Hmmmm....good question, i'd say my definition of illogical, is "logically flawed" flawed by todays proof and standards. Flawed by an irrational thinking pattern and by following anything blindly, (not asking questions) as far as religion goes anyway.

A Vulcan? *confused*

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 02:33 AM

A sample definition of irrational;

Main Entry: ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: ir-'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: not rational: as a : not governed by reason, mental clarity, or understanding b : not governed by a fair consideration of facts or evidence;

Now Aikimac you know we're going to disagree on this. You think that there are actually enough rational reasons to believe in your God, I don't. We have to agree to disagree.
The religoius writings of C.S. Lewis -- irrational by your definition above?
Sir Isaac Newton -- irrational? He wrote more theology than math and science.
The preaching and writings of R.C. Sproul -- irrational?

The list could be lengthened but the point is that theism is not irrational. It can be expressed as an eminently reasonable explanation of the world around us. I'm sorry you have not encountered it in that way.

Tomanak

01-Aug-2005, 09:16 AM

Just to answer the question and stay completely on topic (as per the title of the thread):

Yes I do. Passionately. And in Jesus Christ. The whole deal.

Can I prove that my faith is right in a logical, scientific manner? No way. I won't even try. That's why its called "faith". Do I relish arguing or imposing my beliefs on those who don't share them? Not at all.

Do I have my reasons for believing in God/Christ? Yes, of course. The sky hasn't parted, the bush in my backyard has not caught fire, a booming voice didn't talk to me one morning. But His presence is alive and real in my life as if those events happened.

Is it blind faith? I sure hope so. That way, it means something. It's more special. Believing without empirical evidence. Does it prove anything to say you believe in God if he appears to everyone in a giant cloud with full CNN coverage? How was your faith tested then? Some unbelievers say that Christians are following a "herd mentality" or not using "intellectual reasoning". I prefer to call it a personal relationship.

Do I condemn those who don't see it my way? Absolutely, definitely NOT. That's not my Savior's style, and it isn't mine either.

Am I open for cordial, civilized, and friendly discussion with unbelievers? Sure! In the same way I'll talk about the NBA Championships with someone rooting for the opposing team.

Do I respond favorably to those who blatantly and obscenely insult my God? Ask my students and fellow instructors :yeleyes:

Strafio

01-Aug-2005, 11:29 AM

Hmmmm....good question, i'd say my definition of illogical, is "logically flawed" flawed by todays proof and standards.
Then I guess we go to Aikimac. I guess that a lot of things we believe in aren't purely logical. I mean we'd have to think twice if the belief contradicted logic. Talking of which, is God by his nature provable? Whatever "miracles" or "signs" he gave, the "athiest" would always be able to say that "there's a scientific explanation that we just haven't come across yet". So if God couldn't be proved even if he was real, is it really so irrational to believe in him without "perfect logical proof"?

Flawed by an irrational thinking pattern and by following anything blindly, (not asking questions) as far as religion goes anyway.
There are SOME people who blindly follow a religion but the majority are asking questions all the time. So they believe in a certain book a little more than you'd like, but there's plenty of reasons for that, (I think there's a book called "Case for Christ" or something where a guy tries to discredit the Bible by comparing it to contradict history. There ends up being such a good match that he becomes a believer...) not 100% concrete proof else otherwise everyone would believe in it, but "good" reason if you will...

A Vulcan? *confused*
Oh, some aliens on Startrek who are purely logical. It makes them seem kind of autistic at times... ;)

ThaiBxr

01-Aug-2005, 05:47 PM

The religoius writings of C.S. Lewis -- irrational by your definition above?
Sir Isaac Newton -- irrational? He wrote more theology than math and science.
The preaching and writings of R.C. Sproul -- irrational?

The list could be lengthened but the point is that theism is not irrational. It can be expressed as an eminently reasonable explanation of the world around us. I'm sorry you have not encountered it in that way.

It is its eminence alone which makes it reasonable to some people. In terms of plausibility however it is on par with any random claim as to how our world came to be. For example... I could state that evil house elves trillions of lightyears away are responsible for our creation. I'd like to see you go on ahead and disprove that. What separates these claims in terms of believability?.. nothing other than venerable eminence to the prior.

Your Point shows little of anything valid. The fact that Isaac Newton believed in God did not make him an entirely irrational person, and nor would any of these people claiming belief to be irrational, intelligently say so. It simply indicates he held irrational beliefs. Theism IS irrational by nature, hence why God can never be proven nor disproven. It's not a subject of debate, although the devout too often feel that such a truth is insulting and so they attempt to curb it's literal implications.

It's not an insult but rather a basic truth that faith is irrational, as it is driven simply by, faith. It is only as insulting as your insecurities permit. People will go to great lengths to avoid admissions of enfeeblement, and that is how they generally perceive the label of 'irrational'. The title simply doesn't seem to correspond with their cherished notion, of faith derived mental/spiritual strength.

It seems any time you put a theist' back up against the wall they cover up with their self satisfyingly impregnable defense of, 'you just have to believe/have faith'. Furthermore their primary feeding source for the flint in their beliefs seems to be that the notion of God is one which is impervious to science. Why again is it that such beliefs can not be disproven by science?... possibly because science doesn't function in the realm of intangible irrationality? Is it just me, or does this seem a little ironic now that the devout on these forums, are at present, so fervently claiming their beliefs to be far from irrational? It's borderline hypocrisy.

We are not calling you irrational people in contrast to those who don't share your beliefs. We are calling the nature of such beliefs irrational, and in fact they are. I don't see why that should be such a big hurdle of acceptance... or would you prefer we just continued to euphemise the label down to 'faith'?

ThaiBxr

01-Aug-2005, 06:02 PM

Do I condemn those who don't see it my way? Absolutely, definitely NOT. That's not my Savior's style, and it isn't mine either.

It is the style of your 'God' however.

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 06:15 PM

The fact that Isaac Newton believed in God did not make him an entirely irrational person, and nor would any of these people claiming belief to be irrational, intelligently say so. It simply indicates he held irrational beliefs. Theism IS irrational by nature, hence why God can never be proven nor disproven.
This is not so by Maverick's definition above. What's your definiton of "irrational"?

tekkengod

01-Aug-2005, 06:22 PM

Then I guess we go to Aikimac. I guess that a lot of things we believe in aren't purely logical. I mean we'd have to think twice if the belief contradicted logic. Talking of which, is God by his nature provable? Whatever "miracles" or "signs" he gave, the "athiest" would always be able to say that "there's a scientific explanation that we just haven't come across yet". So if God couldn't be proved even if he was real, is it really so irrational to believe in him without "perfect logical proof"?

There are SOME people who blindly follow a religion but the majority are asking questions all the time. So they believe in a certain book a little more than you'd like, but there's plenty of reasons for that, (I think there's a book called "Case for Christ" or something where a guy tries to discredit the Bible by comparing it to contradict history. There ends up being such a good match that he becomes a believer...) not 100% concrete proof else otherwise everyone would believe in it, but "good" reason if you will...

Oh, some aliens on Startrek who are purely logical. It makes them seem kind of autistic at times... ;)

Aikimac made a good point, but it still fails to make religion or theisim seem any more rational. Aiki, you say it is a feesable explination, feel free to elaborate if you will.

thats the point, God by nature is not proveable, making it the reigning champion of irrationality. thats the point, the "Atheist" would be 100% correct in the situation you just gave. think about it, at one point, lightning and eathquakes were considered "acts of god" or "miracles" but now, thanks to advancing science, we know that it is nothing more than static discharge and tectonic plate shifting, which can be explained through knowladge, logic and rational though.

I read "case for christ" a while back, it brought me to the conclusion that Jesus was insane. it was a decent read.

My reccomended reading for you would be

"Intellectual Morons: How ideology makes smart people fall for stupid ideas" By Daniel Flynn

pick it up, its interesting.

A Trekkie are ya? :D

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 06:37 PM

The religoius writings of C.S. Lewis -- irrational by your definition above?
Sir Isaac Newton -- irrational? He wrote more theology than math and science.
The preaching and writings of R.C. Sproul -- irrational?

Are you by any remote chance appealing to authority again? Bringing famous theists into your argument does nothing to help your argument, it only shows that you argue fallaciously. It's ironic that you would try to show that theism is not irrational through irrational arguments :rolleyes:

Instead of appealing to authority, why don't you instead use the more effective approach of appealing to reason, and give us a rational argument for the existence of a supreme being? Logically sound and parsimonious please, needless to say.

Strafio

01-Aug-2005, 06:38 PM

I think people have been using "rational" to mean "logical".

ThaiBxr

01-Aug-2005, 06:44 PM

give us a rational argument for the existence of a supreme being? Logically sound and parsimonious please, needless to say.

uhh, do you understand what parsimonious means? Or did you just thesaurus it trying to embellish your syntax?

There's only one context I could think of which it might make sense in your post, and even that would be an awkward use of the word... are you trying to say you want it to come from him and not somewhere else?

But even if you are, what would be the point in that... if there is a rational argument out there, which I'm confident there isn't, its origin would be of no matter in comparison to its existence.

Strafio

01-Aug-2005, 06:47 PM

religion or theisim seem any more rational
Meh! Maybe it's time to "rephrase".
Is it logical to refuse to believe in something that isn't 100% logically flawless.
The example of evolution comes to mind.

It is the best theory that scientists have so far.
Thing is there's a lot of holes in it, bits that can't be explained, so it's not quite a 100% logical conclusion (something that creationists love to point out). Now I believe that evolution happened but I don't need my beliefs to be 100% logical. What's your excuse? :p

My reccomended reading for you would be

"Intellectual Morons: How ideology makes smart people fall for stupid ideas" By Daniel Flynn
I'll give it a go. I still haven't gotten on to Case For Christ yet. There's no way that "historical records" can prove that every word of the Bible is correct... maybe based around truths but there's certainly been some chinese whispers going on.

A Trekkie are ya? :D
Knew that was coming...
Nah, but I catch the odd episode and I think everyone's come across that Spock character at sometime or other.

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 07:01 PM

I think people have been using "rational" to mean "logical".
No, I think people are saying "rational" when they really mean "agree with me." R.C. Sproul fits Maverick's definition to a T, so by Mav's definition Sproul is rational, but Sproul doesn't agree with some people, so some people are labeling Sproul "irrational." Very odd.

Are you by any remote chance appealing to authority again?
I didn't do it in the first place, so I couldn't have done it "again," and, beyond that, I didn't do it here. Are you even following the discussion? I daresay, if you were following the discussion you would not have asked your question!

tekkengod

01-Aug-2005, 07:12 PM

It is the best theory that scientists have so far.
Thing is there's a lot of holes in it, bits that can't be explained, so it's not quite a 100% logical conclusion (something that creationists love to point out). Now I believe that evolution happened but I don't need my beliefs to be 100% logical. What's your excuse? :p

I'll give it a go. I still haven't gotten on to Case For Christ yet. There's no way that "historical records" can prove that every word of the Bible is correct... maybe based around truths but there's certainly been some chinese whispers going on.

Evolution is accepted as a fact in most places. but your right, it has its holes, it still makes me laugh to see churches move to stop teaching it in school though. we'll stop teaching evolution when they stop having service.

I really reccomend that book, it covers some hot topics and makes alot of sense.

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 07:19 PM

uhh, do you understand what parsimonious means? Or did you just thesaurus it trying to embellish your syntax?

Yes, I understand exactly what it means. The law of parsimony, also more commonly referred to as Ockham's razor, says that the adoption of the simplest explanation, with the least number of unnecessary assumptions (Preferably zero) is the most rational choice when one is faced with two or more consistent explanations of a problem. One could explain the existence of the universe by appealing to a supreme being, but cosmology has already shown that it is logically and empirically consistent that the universe could have arisen naturally with no need of metaphysical causes. This renders the creation theory an erroneous violation of parsimony, because it makes unnecessary and unwarranted assumptions in an attempt to explain a problem that can be explained more simply without the superflous assumptions.

Now, kindly explain what you don't understand about my asking that any argument for God be both logically sound and parsimonious?

I didn't do it in the first place, so I couldn't have done it "again," and, beyond that, I didn't do it here. Are you even following the discussion? I daresay, if you were following the discussion you would not have asked your question!

I wasn't referring to this discussion with my implication that you've appealed to authority in the past, I was referring to other threads in which you've spouted off famous theists as if it actually had ANYTHING to do with the rationality of believing in God.

For those who are talking of holes in evolution, and it not being 100% logical, I'd love to hear what some of these holes are, and in what way the theory is illogical.

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 07:26 PM

One could explain the existence of the universe by appealing to a supreme being, but cosmology has already shown that it is logically and empirically consistent that the universe could have arisen naturally with no need of metaphysical causes. This renders the creation theory an erroneous violation of parsimony, because it makes unnecessary and unwarranted assumptions in an attempt to explain a problem that can be explained more simply without the superflous assumptions.
The one side says, "This here has the characteristic of self-creation." And the other side says, "No, this here other thing has that characteristic." Why, then, is the one more "parsimonious" than the other? It sure sounds to me as if you are using the word "rational" to mean "he says the things that I agree with."

Strafio

01-Aug-2005, 07:31 PM

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 07:42 PM

Little things like the missing links and explanations how life came from "no life", things like that. It's a very solid theory as far as looking that far back in time is concerned, the best we have and I think it's the right one.
Not 100% logically flawless though. There's bits we have to assume/take for granted.

What do you mean by missing link? Every single organism on the planet is a link according to evolution, every single organism is an evolututionary transition between it's ancestors and its offspring. So do you mean to say, we haven't discovered every single fossil there is to find in the crust of the planet? I can't even imagine how that is a hole in evolution, anymore than the fact that we haven't picked up and dropped every single piece of matter on earth is a hole in the theory of gravity.

Also, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, so I don't understand why you would bring it up, much less bring it up as a hole in evolution. Abiogenesis is a completely seperate theory, evolutionary theory "starts" with replicating life-forms that can genetically mutate and thus change their characteristics, upon which natural selection can start to work.

And even if these were somehow holes, which they are not, they are not logical contradictions, so I don't see how they would make evolution logically flawed.

The one side says, "This here has the characteristic of self-creation." And the other side says, "No, this here other thing has that characteristic." Why, then, is the one more "parsimonious" than the other? It sure sounds to me as if you are using the word "rational" to mean "he says the things that I agree with."

Why is one more parsimonious? I thought I made this perfectly clear - one makes unwarranted and unnecessary assumptions, the other does not. Rational does not mean agrees with me, it means in accordance with reason (logic).

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 07:51 PM

Why is one more parsimonious? I thought I made this perfectly clear - one makes unwarranted and unnecessary assumptions, the other does not. Rational does not mean agrees with me, it means in accordance with reason (logic).
You mean an assumption like this (quoted from you):"... evolutionary theory 'starts' with replicating life-forms that can genetically mutate and thus change their characteristics, upon which natural selection can start to work."

Where'd those replicating life-forms come from, eh? Don't you have to assume their existence beforehand? Don't you have to make a assumption that something already exists? Dontcha?

And so my point in post #158 remains.

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 07:58 PM

You mean an assumption like this (quoted from you):"... evolutionary theory 'starts' with replicating life-forms that can genetically mutate and thus change their characteristics, upon which natural selection can start to work."

Where'd those replicating life-forms come from, eh? Don't you have to assume their existence beforehand? Don't you have to make a assumption that something already exists? Dontcha?

Do you know anything about evolution whatsoever?

There is no such thing as evolution without replicating lifeforms with variation. So without replicating lifeforms with variation, evolutionary theory doesn't come into play. So abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, because abiogenesis is about the sponteneous emergence of replicating lifeforms. The sponteneous emergence of replicating lifeforms has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory only applies once the lifeforms are there. It doesn't matter if they arise naturally, if aliens planted them on earth 3.5 billion years ago, if God put them there, whatever it is its completely irrelevent to evolution. Evolution is about what happened once they were already there.

So your point is irrelevent and misguided Aikimac, and I kindly suggest that you do some research on what evolution is and isn't before you speak on it again.

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 08:06 PM

tekkengod

01-Aug-2005, 08:12 PM

So belief in God isn't a million miles away from believing in evolution?
Perhaps the ockham raxor thingamy breaks that one as evolution is the "best explanation we have" while there's theories to explain things that don't require a "God" of sorts.

theres a huge differance there. one has a decent logcial scientific backing, one dosen't.

thats one of my ponits.

"we have theories to explain things that don't require a god of sorts"

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 08:22 PM

Ohhhh -- so I can say that God put it there, and we're done. It's neither unwarranted (hey, life got here somehow) nor unnecessary (we have to account for life somehow) --> it's rational. And it's also "parsimonious" because it makes no greater assumption than any alternative.

It's both unwarranted and unnecessary, because the theory of abiogenesis has produced much evidence for natural, sponteneous generation of life. Ever heard of the miller-urey experiment? Ever heard of virii being created in the lab? Sure, the miller-urey experiment didn't produce life, but it produced amino acids sponteneously out of non-life, and of course you know that amino acids make proteins and proteins make life. And of course the virus isn't generally classified as living, but it is self-replicating and does vary genetically from generation to generation. All evidence suggests that life could have arisen through abiogenesis, and we're constantly discovering new things and finding new ways in which this may have possibly happened. So God has no room in the picture, except for being inserted unwarranted and unnecessarily. It's not rational to say God created life on this planet, it's an unsupported and unparsimonious conjecture. You're either gravely misunderstanding the concepts and terms at hand here, or you're desperately trying to make a hopeless point.

So I'm both parsimonious and rational. Whew! I'm glad we got that cleared up! Jolly good, jolly good.

No, but you are ignorant of what those words actually mean apparently, and how they've fit into the context of this discussion, more specifically into the context of evolution, abiogenesis, and creation theories.

ThaiBxr

01-Aug-2005, 08:34 PM

Yes, I understand exactly what it means. The law of parsimony, also more commonly referred to as Ockham's razor, says that the adoption of the simplest explanation, with the least number of unnecessary assumptions (Preferably zero) is the most rational choice when one is faced with two or more consistent explanations of a problem. One could explain the existence of the universe by appealing to a supreme being, but cosmology has already shown that it is logically and empirically consistent that the universe could have arisen naturally with no need of metaphysical causes. This renders the creation theory an erroneous violation of parsimony, because it makes unnecessary and unwarranted assumptions in an attempt to explain a problem that can be explained more simply without the superflous assumptions.

Now, kindly explain what you don't understand about my asking that any argument for God be both logically sound and parsimonious?

Okay, if you're referring to the law of parsimony rather than the characteristic, I see what you intend... but the thing is you're distorting the law. Parsimony doesn't mean that the simpler explanation is the correct explanation, it means if you're going to pick between one or the other shoot for the simpler one.

Simply because an explanation doesn't correspond with Parsimony doesn't mean it's false, it's just basic, 'thanks for the tip captain obvious' reasoning. You can't say that in a debate only points which correspond to the law of Parsimony are admissable, otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate now would there.

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 08:37 PM

Parsimony doesn't mean that the simpler explanation is the correct explanation, it means if you're going to pick between one or the other shoot for the simpler one.

That's exactly what I said. I never said the simplest is automatically the correct one, I said it's the most rational to adopt.

Simply because an explanation doesn't correspond with Parsimony doesn't mean it's false, it's just basic, 'thanks for the tip captain obvious' reasoning. You can't say that in a debate only points which correspond to the law of Parsimony are admissable, otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate now would there.

Unparsimonious arguments aren't neccessarily false, but they are irrational. That's the point I was making. And I've had plenty of debates where all parties were able to avoid unparsimonious arguments.

clemsontkd

01-Aug-2005, 08:41 PM

I believe in God. I do such because I truly believe it to be true with all that I have seen (in a short 18 years) and all the thinking I have done about it. Someone once said to me that if God does not exist then we are incredibly lucky piles of biological matter and that is all we are.

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 08:43 PM

Sure, the miller-urey experiment didn't produce life
...
And of course the virus isn't generally classified as living
...

You'll forgive me for not being impressed.

My polite atheist friend NZRic and I already had this discussion. Right now, at present, everywhere on the planet people and dogs and frogs and every other living animal are experiencing life born from prior life. This is happening in New York City and Los Angeles and Seattle and Miami, and it's even happening in Idaho. In contrast, right now, at present, no where on the planet has there been a documented instance of true abiogenesis.

So, you'll excuse me for not being impressed when you assert that the unproven assumption of abiogensis does not count as a, quote, "unnecessary and unwarranted assumption" for purposes of the parsimony rule.

You'll excuse me for not being impressed when you label as "irrational" a conclusion that is thoroughly consistent in every respect with the real-life experiences of all people in all countries in all times.

If one of us is not thinking clearly, it's you, because your assertion is by your own admission based upon guesswork, whereas my conclusion is based upon the experiences of all people in all times in all places including those occuring right now in your home State.

Guesswork versus witnessed factual data. Hmm. Who again is irrational according to Maverick's definition?

All evidence suggests that life could have arisen through abiogenesis, and we're constantly discovering new things and finding new ways in which this may have possibly happened. So God has no room in the picture, except for being inserted unwarranted and unnecessarily. It's not rational to say God created life on this planet, it's an unsupported and unparsimonious conjecture.
All evidence? Could have? May have possibly?
And you lecture me on "parsimonious" and "unwarranted assumptions" and "unnecessary assumptions" ? And you don't see how my thought process and my conclusions qualify as "rational" according to Maverick's definition of the word?

My point remains undefeated: you are using "rational" to mean "he agrees with me." And that makes you wrong and it makes you look bad. Think about that.

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 08:56 PM

AikiMac

Please don't tell me you're implying the law of biogenesis. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but please make it clear if that's what you're trying to imply by referencing that life is coming from life all over the place. If that's not what you're tacitly asserting, then what was the point of pointing out that people come from people in Idaho?

Anyway, I find it cute that you're so confident in your failed point. You think you've got me pinned, you seem tickled that you caught Socrastein falling into his own trap. It shows in the attitude of your recent posts, and it makes me smile to think you'd be so cocksure with nothing but ignorance and confusion plaguing your argument. Ignorance still yet of what parsimony is all about, what evolution is all about, what abiogenesis is all about, and why creation theories are not rational by any stretch of the word.

Abiogenesis: Life arose naturally from non-life compounds, biology being nothing but chemistry on small enough scales, and abiogenesis being a necessary product of chemistry. Though not replicated, it is logically conistent, and supported by evidence and theory both. We have produced the building blocks of life in the lab, through recreating natural conditions with non-life elements. Amino acids synthesize sponteneously, it's just a matter of chemistry. There are other experiments that support the notion that life can come from non-life naturally.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Creation: Life was placed here by a metaphysical being. Where did the metaphysical being come from? Who cares, we've solved the problem of abiogenesis. Of course, we've only done so by shifting the problem off of life and onto God. Instead of having to explain where the first organisms came from, we know have to explain where the explanation came from. So we've not solved the problem at all, we've answered it with another problem, which isn't an answer at all, it's called an unparsimonious assumption. Creation theory is not logically consistent, it is certainly not empirically supported, nor is it parsimonious by any means. It's an erroneous conjecture, an irrational claim made by people who must insert God somewhere, no matter how ridiculous, because they're already concluded that He exists before they reasoned, instead of the other way around.

aikiMac

01-Aug-2005, 09:26 PM

Where did the metaphysical being come from?
He came from whereever your building blocks for abiogensis came from. How's that for an answer?

You want matter to be self-existing. I want God to be self-existing. To favor your self-existing matter over my self-existing God is not parsimonious and it is not rational. It is hypocritical and no better than name-calling.

Think about that.

Perhaps you label God as "unnecessary" only because you have made up your mind that something else has the characteristic of being self-existing, and that life really did arise spontaneously from non-life. Is that it? Is your mind already made up on these are points of faith? Fine if it is, but can't you have enough honesty to admit what you are doing? Abiogensis has never been witnessed -- you said so. No scientist has proven that matter is self-existing -- you didn't say this but you know it's true. You need both of these articles of faith to be absolute fact. You need them and you don't have them. Think on that.

We're not really so different on the issue of God: something is self-existing. Something. You want matter, I want God, but really, what difference does it make in the abstract? Either way something is self-existing and you can't prove your side any more than I can prove my side. It's a tie. If I'm irrational than so are you.

The bulk of your post is name-calling. I'm ignoring it.

Socrastein

01-Aug-2005, 09:57 PM

The bulk of your post is the same kind of thing I've already thoroughly explained and debunked all day with you. I'm ignoring it.

Strafio

01-Aug-2005, 10:17 PM

Also, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, so I don't understand why you would bring it up, much less bring it up as a hole in evolution. Abiogenesis is a completely seperate theory, evolutionary theory "starts" with replicating life-forms that can genetically mutate and thus change their characteristics, upon which natural selection can start to work.
I was kind of using "evolution" in the "how the world got from fireball to here" sort of thing. I mean, that life is as it is purely through evolution which would have to have started... like everything else I believe that there's an explanation that people haven't found yet, just there's still explaining to do before it's "definate" or something...

theres a huge differance there. one has a decent logcial scientific backing, one dosen't.
Okay. I guess "evolution" is a scientific explanation that's not quite finished wheras God has little to do with science...

thats one of my ponits.

"we have theories to explain things that don't require a god of sorts"
Yeah. I guess I saw the flaw in my own argument there. :)
Maybe faith by definition is "irrational" although I guess I still don't like that word. Perhaps because it's the same word used for arachnophobia or someone being scared of their own shadow. These are different cases though because the fear is proved to be pointless (eg the shadow/spiders are known to be harmless) so in these cases there isn't simply a lack of reason but reason is contradicted.
Faith normally has some reason, good reason just not perfect reason...

Capt Ann

02-Aug-2005, 01:45 AM

AikiMac
Abiogenesis: Life arose naturally from non-life compounds, biology being nothing but chemistry on small enough scales, and abiogenesis being a necessary product of chemistry. Though not replicated, it is logically conistent, and supported by evidence and theory both. We have produced the building blocks of life in the lab, through recreating natural conditions with non-life elements. Amino acids synthesize sponteneously, it's just a matter of chemistry. There are other experiments that support the notion that life can come from non-life naturally. It is neither logical, nor supported by evidence, and only supported by a theory designed to explain it in the face of the lack of experimental evidence (a vacuous argument, for you logicians). The experiment you referenced (twice) is notable specifically because it did NOT replicate natural conditions AND because nothing 'synthesized spontaneously'. Amino acids were produced with decidely un-natural conditions, in a highly unstable environment, with external energy sources to allow production of less stable chemicals, and a 'trap' to separate these once formed, so they would not remain mixed with the precursors (where they would invariable return to their precursor components as soon as the external energy source driving the reaction was removed).

Abiogenesis is completely at variance with the modern science of Information Theory. You might have some excuse for believing in the plausibility of abiogenesis, prior to the discovery of DNA and complex genetic structures. However, the DNA code for even the simplest of living organisms is 1., statistically improbable to the point of being beyond the realm of any reasonable random statistical occurence, and 2., irreducibly complex (i.e., no simpler variation postulated as an intermediary step could result in a viable organism). Therefore, it is completely illogical and irrational to assume that simple living organisms ocurred naturally as a product of chance chemical interactions on the time scale commensurate with the theoretical age of the earth. It is more logical (more in keeping with all available scientific data, including knowledge of genetic structures, information theory, probability theory, and geological evidence for the age of the earth), and therefore more rational, to assume that all life on earth was introduced from some other source (be it creation by God or seeding from another universe).

I have to agree with Aiki on this one. Sounds like your definition of logical is 'agrees with me'. This does come across as more than a little bit arrogant.

tekkengod

02-Aug-2005, 01:48 AM

Okay. I guess "evolution" is a scientific explanation that's not quite finished wheras God has little to do with science...

Yeah. I guess I saw the flaw in my own argument there. :)
Maybe faith by definition is "irrational" although I guess I still don't like that word. Perhaps because it's the same word used for arachnophobia or someone being scared of their own shadow. These are different cases though because the fear is proved to be pointless (eg the shadow/spiders are known to be harmless) so in these cases there isn't simply a lack of reason but reason is contradicted.
Faith normally has some reason, good reason just not perfect reason...

Exactly, Evolution is accepted as fact in most places and god is well, the exact opposite of a fact.

Faith is irrational, and i could see why you wouldn't like that word being attached to it but you have to accept that is what it is. Arachnophobia irrational? yeah right, if i see a spider, i'm gonna kill the damn thing before it bites me :D The reason behind faith is simple human nessecity.
"Religion is mans way of explaining that which he does not understand" - Rufus Shinra. No one has ALL the answers, but the scientific explination always sounds alot better

Maverick

02-Aug-2005, 08:35 AM

Socrastein

02-Aug-2005, 04:00 PM

Capt Ann

Your creationist PRATTs are quite sad, and they show that you undoubtedly know nothing of what you speak, save for what you've heard from ignorant creationist sources.

No scientist who advocates abiogenesis believes that a complex cell containing DNA sponteneously arose out of non-life. That is a ridiculous straw man on your part, and either you're lying outright to make your point, or like I said you have no idea what you're talking about because your point is completely irrelevent to modern research and theory on abiogenesis.

As for irreducible complexity, that hideous creationist phrase that you'll never hear someone with a proper understanding of evolution using, it's nothing but an appeal to ignorance. You cannot know something is irreducibly complex, it can only appear as such because you cannot imagine the intermediary steps. When you argue irreducible complexity, you're saying "I don't know how this could have formed naturally, therefore it didn't".

So you throw a huge straw man and a huge appeal to ignorance at me for your "arguments" against abiogenesis, and you have the gall to say that I and other scientists are irrational.

As for the Miller-Urey experiment being unnatural, that's simply ridiculous. Naturally occuring gases were put into the container, and the outside energy source was surges of electricity to simulate multiple lightning strikes that were undoubtedly happening all over the place in the early phases of the Earth's atmosphere. The trap you mention could occur naturally in multiple ways, one of them being the chemical property of certain lipids to naturally form fatty barriers, much like cell walls, that trap out other chemicals. Early amino acids and various other life-essential compounds could have synthesized inside these natural chemical walls.

You should really do some actual reading on abiogenesis, nobody with even a rudimentary understanding of it would actually think those arguments of yours worth worth anything. I provided a link to 3 articles that cover the basics of abiogenesis, and I'm sure if you google for sources OTHER than creationist PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) sites, you may find some actual credible, relevent information.

aikiMac

02-Aug-2005, 04:39 PM

We need to apply Occam's razor to the last couple of posts.

Ok Aiki, let's go with the idea that God created life, or created the conditions for life. So you've solved the problem of abiogenesis. Now you have another problem to solve - who created God. And we'll have no cop-outs like 'he's eternal' or 'he's self existing' as these claims are as irrational as you see abiogenesis.
No problem. :) The person/thing/whatever who created God is the same person/thing/whatever who created that non-living matter from which life arose of its own accord.

You want matter to be self-existing, and you scoff at the idea of something else, something besides matter, being self-existing? Excuse me?

You're stuck explaining how matter can be self-existing, and I'm stuck explaining how something else (or more properly, someone else) can be self-existing. I totally missed the part where my "thing" is any more of a puzzle than your "thing." I think you're in no better a position than I'm in.

Do you see my point now? :)

Why bring God into it?
Because as Socrastein admitted above, and as NZRic admitted in a related thread, and as Capt Ann pointed out, no one has ever documented a case of life arising from non-life. It hasn't happened. But we've all witnessed, or at least know people who witnessed, life arising from life. Every day of every year life comes from life. I have three children -- life from life. If you ever lived on a farm you've seen life from life. If you've ever grown a garden you've seen life from life. All over the planet from the beginning of human time until now and still continuing forward, life ALWAYS comes from life. We have zero, count them, zero, counter-examples.

My conclusion, that life originally began from some other life, is 100% consistent with every single known example of life arising anywhere in the entire universe. Are you really going to publicly say that a theory consistent with every last piece of data is not good science? The reason this theory is unpopular is that it demands the existence of some sort of God, and people don't want there to be any sort of God at all, so they hem and haw and kick their shoes and say, "Well, someday far in the future we'll prove it isn't so."

Riiiight. And they make fun of me for having faith -- sheesh, that's hypocritical if ever something was!

Introducing God into the equation is unnecessary and simply creates more questions and problems
Questions and problems, yes, but so does the alternative. Abiogenesis and evolution are fraught with questions and problems.

Unnecessary -- wrong. Every single child, dog, duck, worm, petunia, carrot, etc. that ever was born, hatched, or grown from a seed testifies to the universal fact that life arises from life. To say, "Well, you know, that's how it works today but that's not how it all started," is to insert an unnecessary assumption into scienctific research.

Make sense now? :)

clemsontkd

02-Aug-2005, 04:44 PM

The only reason it seems irrational that God is eternal and has been is because humans have a limited time on Earth. Because we have a beginning and an end to our time on Earth I believe that it is impossible to understand or explain.

Anth

02-Aug-2005, 04:47 PM

Socrastein - please calm down a little ;)

Capt Ann

02-Aug-2005, 04:48 PM

Regarding the rationality/logic of belief in God:

I think many on this forum are using a different definition of 'logical' for a belief in God, as compared to the definition applied to acceptance of ideas/philosophies/beliefs to which they agree. Please keep that statement in mind and consider its possible validity as this discussion continues. I would like to give some specific examples. If you consider the other examples 'logical' and 'rational', then please accept that belief in a Supreme Being is 'logical' and 'rational' in exactly the same sense, and to exactly the same degree.

Continuing...... ;)

As I mentioned previously on this thread, logic cannot really prove what to believe, as much as it can be used as an excellent tool to decide what not to believe. All logical arguments begin with some set of assumptions (postulates), and/or undefined terms. This is necessary, given that human beings are finite, and necessarily cannot know everything. The conclusions derived from logical arguments based on those assumptions and postulates will either be inconsistent (proving the original assumptions/definitions to be false, and therefore not worth believing; i.e., irrational, illogical), or the conclusions derived from logical arguments based on those postulates and assumptions will be shown to be consistent (therefore, possibly true, possibly false, but rational and logical). A self-consistent philosophy or belief system is correct, within the limits of the validity of its initial assumptions.

Example One: Geometry. Mathematical proofs are fascinating to me. They are elegant in their simplicity and absolute, inescapable logic. The conclusions from mathematical proofs probably come as close to 'facts' that can be ‘proved’ in any absolute sense, as anything we can claim to ‘know’ in this lifetime. Still, the limits of logic that I mentioned above apply, even to mathematical arguments.

Consider Euclidian Geometry. It begins with three undefined terms (point, line, plane) and 16 basic postulates. None of the postulates may be proved. None is derivable from the others. None may be ‘known’ to be true in any absolute sense. No attempt is made to define the ‘undefined terms’; they are just assumed to exist. The rest of Euclidian Geometry may be derived from these statements.

I trust that no one on this forum would make the statement that Euclidian Geometry is ‘illogical’: Euclidian Geometry is preeminently logical, and should be used as the highest standard of the correct application of logical principles to derive a useful, internally-consistent body of beliefs. Still, technically speaking, Euclidian Geometry is not valid on curved space, since some of the original postulates are contradicted. In other words, all the statements derived from Euclidian Geometry are not true, but they are consistent, logical, and rational. Furthermore, the body of statements derived from Euclidian Geometry is true, to the extent that the original postulates and definitions are correct.

Example Two: The Scientific Method. Wow! What an amazing tool for understanding and exploring our natural world! I marvel that something so useful (and something so seemingly obvious to us) wasn’t invented until a Catholic Bishop enumerated and implemented it in his 13th century English university!

Of course, the limits of logical inquiry that I described in the first paragraph apply to the scientific method, as well. The scientific method depends on at least one undefined term (time) and several postulates. These include the law of causality (specifically, temporal causality; i.e., that preceding causes result in proceeding effects, and not vice versa), the existence of physical law, and the value of our physical senses in reporting meaningful data. These may seem ‘obvious’, but like the postulates of Euclidian Geometry, they are neither provable, nor are they derivable from each other. In fact, recent advances in quantum mechanics cast some shadow on the universal applicability of temporal causality.

Still, hopefully, no one on this forum would suggest that the ‘scientific method’ is illogical or irrational. It has helped us to derive a useful, internally-consistent body of information that may be regarded as ‘true’, within the limits of the validity of the original set of assumptions.

Back to the ‘God’ Debate: With these two examples in mind, I submit that it is neither ‘irrational’ nor ‘illogical’ to postulate the existence of a Supreme Being who created the physical universe and continues to interact with it. As in Euclidian Geometry, and as in the scientific method, the existence of God is established as the preceding postulate, and my belief system is derived, logically, from that and a few other reasonable assumptions. The body of knowledge that results is logical, rational, and internally-consistent. It provides a framework for viewing other phenomena experienced in daily life. The conclusions drawn have been shown by experience to be repeatable and reliable. Therefore, the conclusions drawn may be considered ‘true’, within the limits of the validity of the initial assumptions.

Hopefully, this helps explain why the words ‘irrational’ and ‘illogical’ are loaded terms that provide more insult than substance when applied to those who believe in a Supreme Being. The debate may proceed logically and rationally, even if you disagree with the conclusions because you disagree with the original assumptions. If, however, you find some logical inconsistency in a particular belief about a Supreme Being, then it would be appropriate to point out such inconsistencies in a forum such as this one, in a polite, respectful manner.

PS: The term 'irreducible complexity', as applies to the debate over abiogenesis, was first coined by an admitted agnostic.

thepunisher

02-Aug-2005, 04:52 PM

I have no desire, nor do i require a crutch. the stronger a person is, the less of a need they will have for such a belief.

No !, I don't believe in god.

...that the stronger a person is the less in need is he is of such a belief. He can believe in himself most of all. Of course not everyone is strong all the time but relying on yourself is better than relying on an outside force...I think.

Christian

Socrastein

02-Aug-2005, 05:21 PM

The person/thing/whatever who created God is the same person/thing/whatever who created that non-living matter from life arose of its own accord.

God was fused in the furnace of a dying star that went supernova? Cause that's where the heavier elements that make up the earth and give it its various compounds come from.

You want matter to be self-existing, and you scoff at the idea of something else, something besides matter, being self-existing? Excuse me?

We have every reason to believe that matter is self-existing, that the universe quantum tunneled out of a matterless, energyless void (nothing) into a singularity and then inflated at an incredible rate into the universe as we know it today, all matter and energy being a symmetry breakage of the quantum curvature of that initial singularity. In other words, there is absolutely NO need to appeal to a metaphysical cause for the universe, you're just throwing it in there for no reason. This is no different than saying God causes lightning, EVEN AFTER we have already given a natural explanation for lightning. And someone like you would say "Well God is no more mysterious than the lightning itself, so we're both on the same level really" but that's preposterous, because throwing God in does nothing but complicate the scenario unnecessarily, it doesn't explain anything, it's just a plug for the metaphysical that is unwarranted, unneeded, and unsupported. I could explain the growth of my hair by saying that intangible little gnomes wave their magic wands on my scalp every night, but that's unparsimonious when there is already a natural explanation for the accumulation of dead cells on my head. I could explain the sun moving across the sky by saying an invisible Apollo pulls it across the sky with his magical chariot, but that's unparsimonious when there is already a natural explanation for the rotation of the earth in relation to the position of the sun.

The above examples are NO DIFFERENT than what you and others in this thread are proposing. You can try to cover up the irrationality and ridiculousness of your argument by your attempts to level the playing field, saying that the atheist, the naturalist, is no different than you, that you're being just as rational as we are, but those are futile hopes.

It's beyond me how you could so clearly miss the point of Ockham's razor, as if it has no purpose and no meaning. You see no problem with throwing metaphysical explanations into problems that don't require them, you see no problem pulling magical beings out of thin air to explain things that are explained more simply and naturally without all the mysticism.

Matter being self-existing has one less assumption than God being self-existing: that God exists. You have to assume God exists with your theory, and you have no reason to do so other than your desire. Naturalistic explanations of the universe don't make such erroneous assumptions, they don't propose unnecessary metaphysical beings, they go with the simplest explanation that fits the data, and since NOWHERE in science do we find a need for God, God is never proposed as an explanation for anything. We find that everything can be explained, or at least potentially explained (As in, theoretically sound but not yet empirically proven) without ever appealing to magic.

My conclusion, that life originally began from some other life, is 100% consistent with every single known example of life arising anywhere in the entire universe. Are you really going to publicly say that a theory consistest with every last piece of data is not good science?

I shudder that you would actually argue the "law" of biogenesis. Your theory is not consistent with every last piece of data. You obviously don't understand how science works Aiki. Having never seen or reproduced a phenomenon does not mean that it never occured. No scientist in the history of man ever saw our solar system form from the remaining elements of a supernova, but all evidence and theory points to this being the origin of our celestial neighborhood, and thus that is the accepted theory. However according to you, the fact that we've never seen it means it never happened.

What we do know is that if we rewind the evolutionary clock and climb down the taxonomic tree, we gradually get to simpler and simpler organisms, all the way back to a time when there was nothing but very simple one-celled bacteria, some eukaryotic and some prokaryotic. Abiogenesis has not been reproduced, but all evidence suggests that this is how life arose. The ONLY way someone would deny this is if they ALREADY have ASSUMED that God created life. Without that irrational assumption, all evidence and theory necessitates the conclusion that life arose naturally, and that one day we will discover precisely how this could have happened. Your God of the gaps is a very poor argument, it's nothing but an appeal to ignorance, that's all you have and it's a FALLACY AikiMac, how long will it take until you finally understand why that's not a good argument?

No true scientist denies abiogenesis, because no true scientist would ever appeal to the metaphysical to explain something out of ignorance. Science simply does not work that way. Your law of biogenesis has no support, it has no proof, it's purely circular. Abiogenesis is impossible because life comes from life - that's another way of saying abiogenesis is impossible because its impossible. Also, you really should learn about the nature and limits of inductive reasoning, because you're trying to force a conclusion that cannot be made with any certainty. Just because every swan you've ever seen is white, doesn't mean that you can make a "Law of White Swans" that states black swans are impossible. That's exactly what you're doing however, and it stems from your ignorance of how inductive reasoning works, and what you can and can't use it to 'prove'.

"Well, someday far in the future we'll prove it isn't so."

Riiiight. And they make fun of me for having faith -- sheesh, that's hypocritical if ever something was!

Actually, this is a good example of where inductive reasoning can play a role. Faith by definition is belief without reason or evidence. You have no logical reason, and certainly no evidence, that God exists. However, I have every reason to believe that science will continue its trend of explaining things that as of yet are unexplained. Why? Because it has been doing so for hundreds of years. It's the exact same reason we all assume the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Because it's done so every other morning, and the more it does so, the more reason we have to believe it will again. Everything that has ever been explained by science was at one point unexplained. And everything that's ever been unexplained has been advocated as proof of God(s) by somebody. Yet, these proofs of God, these works of the divine, all are shown to be natural and explainable, not only that but often simple as well. However, instead of the theists catching a hint and realizing that appealing to ignorance is a pretty sad way to argue for God or against science, they just retreat back a little further every single time, finding the new unexplained phenomenon and saying "Well, those other things are obviously natural and scientifically explainable, but what about *this*?" where *this* is any one of many as of yet unexplained occurences in nature. Then when those are explained, you'll retreat back further, and further, until there's nowhere left to turn, and you'll have to admit (Not you, lucky for you and your cherished beliefs you'll die long before your "evidence" and "reasons" are all destroyed by science) that you have no reason to believe in God, no gap to stick him in anymore, no dark corner to hide him in, hoping science doesn't shed light on it any time soon.

You people with your God of the gaps are like cockroaches, scurrying to and fro the dark corners of scientific knowledge, fleeing everytime science grows and expands to illuminate another aspect of nature that was previously unexplained. You have the nerve to shake your fist at the light and say "You'll never get me over here!" just as billions did before you, and somehow you tell yourself that history WON'T repeat itself, somehow you convince yourself that THIS TIME science REALLY won't be able to explain X phenomenon.

Your time has come. You don't realize the advances made in abiogenesis, because you haven't bothered to educate yourself on them. If you knew anything about it, you'd know it's hopeless to stand your ground there. Evolution and abiogenesis render a creator of life completely pointless. Most people have fallen back into what seems to be the final refuge, the beginning of the universe itself, telling themselves "Science will never get us here!" and yet for decades now there has been evidence, math, and scientific theory that supports a naturalistic origin of space-time, energy, and the laws of nature themselves. There simply is nowhere in science that God fits anymore. People who think otherwise are only the ones who don't know anything about science, biology and cosmology more specifically. Your hopes have been dashed but you just haven't realized it yet, and probably never will, because knowledge is obviously not your desired end.

Abiogenesis and evolution are fraught with questions and problems.

And the earth is flat Aiki. Spherical terra-theories are fraught with questions and problems. Or perhaps you just don't know anything about abiogenesis or evolution, and so you THINK that they are in danger or are lacking, only because you don't know any better and don't have enough respect for truth to truly study them and make an informed decision. In all my years of debate I STILL have NEVER known an anti-evolutionist who actually knew what evolution was and how it worked. NEVER. That says something, doesn't it? Where I find attacks on evolution, I ALWAYS find ignorance of evolution. I doubt it's a coincidence.

Maverick

02-Aug-2005, 05:35 PM

"<Text deleted. Personal attacks are not allowed here. Consider this a warning.>"

I think you misunderstood what I posted. Since when was calling a point(s) irrational a personal attack? I admit it was rather sloppily worded though.

Socrastein

02-Aug-2005, 05:38 PM

<If you have a problem with the way this forum is moderated, then send an e-mail to one of the admins or mods. Don't bring it up in a post.>

KT

-Edit-

Capt Ann, I'd love to hear what your theistic postulates are and why you propose them. You haven't actually given a single argument for why you believe God exists yet. Nobody in this thread has, in fact, after nearly 200 posts.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

02-Aug-2005, 05:40 PM

Kinjiro Tsukasa

02-Aug-2005, 05:52 PM

Hopefully, this helps explain why the words ‘irrational’ and ‘illogical’ are loaded terms that provide more insult than substance when applied to those who believe in a Supreme Being.
I agree completely. The word "ignorant" is another loaded term providing more insult than substance.

Given the obvious intelligence of many of the people posting in this thread, I have a hard time believing that those who are slinging these terms at other posters (people, not points) really don't understand the concept of "loaded terms".

If you can't make your own point without calling others' opinions "illogical" and "irrational", then maybe your own point isn't very strong. It's like a politician who answers the question "Why should I vote for you?" by listing his/her opponent's flaws. It doesn't wash.

BendzR

02-Aug-2005, 06:09 PM

Regarding Evolution,

Many things I believed were problems for evolution, I simply thought because I wasn't informed on the reasoning behind the theory, etc.

I don't really care about the whole Evolution vs Creation topic as much as I once did, but I never got a solid response from the evolution side of it, regarding the following.

Creationists suggest that since specialisation (ie. Wolf Ancestor evolving into a Dog) goes hand in hand with genome degradation (the Canine Ancestor has specialised into evolving into a Dog, and thus that organism no longer has the genetic information to produce Wolf genetic information (as its been lost, and degraded)).

If this is true (not sure if it is, my understanding on genetics is very limited) then how can an organism that is supposedly my ancestor (yet has less genetic makeup than myself) eventually result in the genetic makeup contained in me ? That would require for the environment to increase genetic information. Can this happen ? I don't know. Are there any examples of animals increasing their genetic information via mutation or natural selection ?

Socra ? You seem to know your stuff on Evolution. Care to explain this to me please?

Socrastein

02-Aug-2005, 06:26 PM

That would require for the environment to increase genetic information. Can this happen ?

The environment doesn't effect mutation, it effects the usefulness of mutation. Mutation just naturally occurs because although DNA replication is very efficient, it isn't perfectly efficient, and errors can and do happen all the time.

DNA mutation occur in 3 basic ways.

Sequences are deleted.

AGTCTGATAGC - AGTTAGC
TCAGACTATCG - TCAATCG

Sequences are inserted.

AGTCTGATAGC - AGTCAGCTGATAGC
TCAGACTATCG - TCAGTCGACTATCG

Sequences are switched.

AGTCTGATAGC - TAGCTGAAGTC
TCAGACTATCG - ATCGACTTCAG

As you can probably already see, when a gene mutation creates insertion of a section of code, the genetic code is lengthened, and new information is added. It's really that simple.

Read more about it here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation)

tekkengod

02-Aug-2005, 08:24 PM

No !, I don't believe in god.

...that the stronger a person is the less in need is he is of such a belief. He can believe in himself most of all. Of course not everyone is strong all the time but relying on yourself is better than relying on an outside force...I think.

Christian

THANKYOU!

Anth

02-Aug-2005, 08:32 PM

Any more personal attacks by anyone, and the thread dies.

In case anyone doesnt know the rules, here are the important ones for this thread:

4.1 Profanity:
While we understand that most of our members are grown adults, we do also have young adults and children that visit MAP. Further, many people are offended by vulgar language. If you feel you must swear to get your point across, then please do it elsewhere.
4.1.1 This includes attempts to disguise profanity by using *s to mask letters or by the use of acronyms and abbreviations.

4.3 Abuse / Flaming / Derogatory Comments:
Abusive Comments, personal attacks, flaming, or derogatory insults or comments are strictly forbidden.
4.3.1 It is fine to disagree with another member’s point of view, but please do so in a mature and civil manner.
4.3.2 If someone posts to discuss their personal problems or seeks help from other forums members, please do not respond unless you have something positive or helpful to add.
4.3.3 If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator and let us handle it.

5.3 Administration Dispute Resolution:
If you are having a problem on MAP that you feel you cannot solve by any other means available to you, we invite you to contact one of the MAP administrators via PM or email.
5.3.1 Administrators have the final say with anything in this community.

On the other hand, I may lock the thread out of shear irritation

I have the padlock ready, and the boots to kick anyone breaking any rules, especially those mentioned above, up to the Globies and Admins for binning.

You have been warned

thepunisher

05-Aug-2005, 10:38 PM

Because it's not just a sense of His presence. And yes, in my life He actually has spoken back, and shown that He has cared, and has said many a kind word, and provided in many cases where there was no human way possible for a situation to work out.

...church talking to you ? Because so far as I know the only ppl claiming they speak through god or the "voice of god" are preachers. Whether that is god speaking I doubt very much because than he would have to speak in the voice of, lets say, a billion different preachers, each telling a different story to you..each having a billion different reasons to tell you something.

Christian

thepunisher

05-Aug-2005, 11:11 PM

Religion was actually there before Science and actually we can thank the monks in churches for actually starting to research more into things. Science was an invention that started during the Renaissance period and only out of it came ppl who actually, even though they were working under the church (like Leonardo da Vinci, for example), realizing new things and fighting the church on their stances.

But the church ,in the middle ages especially, also used its influence to have power over the poeple in their villages, even their own king. Things where unexplained, ppl had no idea about what the earth looks like, whether it was flat or round, why thunder made loud noises and lightning struck the earth. So since the church had no clue itself but also knew none of the other ppl had either, and 90 % of the population had no education at all, that they could tell them its an unexplainable power, lets call it "god" that is doing all of this. Write up a few rules, call it the testament, add some stories to make it believable and you got the uneducated ppl in your grasp. And if ppl had the intelligence to speak up like even Leonardo da Vinci had, then you destroy their stories by declaring them the "abdicators of the devil" and burn their evidence. Already in the middle ages the church was a political tool and even more so today.

Along comes the 21.st century. Not only has society become more advanced but also governments have evolved, education has become better and a new subject has been included in the schools:"Science and biology". Why ? Because over those past 400 yrs scientists in the form of monks, scholars and ppl like the Renaissance painters, have gathered information about things we before had no clue about. Also, we invent satellites, microscopes that can see into cells and beyond cells and things that we never had before. Now the church, who before had control over the ppl who had no education suddenly faces a well educated crowd and a dilemma. We no longer accept that the earth is flat, that the reason for lightning to strike is a sign of "gods" anger in us and all of a sudden the church is losing members. And most importantly power. You can no longer tell everyone that they're "abdicators of the devil" because someone actually has facts to prove the church wrong. So what do you do ?

2005: The church, although still in existence and represented by the Vatican,continues losing lots and lots of members. The group of humans on this planet splits into atheists and believers. Now looking at what I told you before who should better be believed..the scientists or the church ? Basically the church by starting to reseach into things more during the Renaissance has provided its own catch22.

P.S: We could also go into another subject here, abortion and how the church used to control and actually still controls the influence of women. But I'll leave it there for now.

Christian

tekkengod

05-Aug-2005, 11:28 PM

aikiMac

05-Aug-2005, 11:39 PM

very good punisher, very good. how true. I'll give it an hour before one of the regulars gets here and makes a pathetic attempt to justify the churches action and tell us how we are wrong, and that the church is gaining power, ect. ect. but we all know whats really happening here. The begin of the downfall of religion is right around the corner. Revolution people. Revolution.
What should I care about "the church" ? :confused:

I totally missed the part where bad things done by people mean that God isn't real. :confused: Wow. That flew right over my head.

And come on now, Martin Luther took on the entire Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago and won. You're 500 years late if you want to pick on the Roman Catholic Church. Let's get with the times amigo! Sheesh! Five hundred years have gone by!

And, don't you have a religion too, T-man? Honestly, aren't you preaching a belief system and a system of morals? Let's be fair, you do act every bit as brainwashed as the people you make fun of for being allegedly "brainwashed." Come on, fair is fair.

thepunisher

05-Aug-2005, 11:51 PM

What should I care about "the church" ? :confused:

..most powerful and influential religious tool still existing today. Without the vatican or the pope none of the other churches or sects would have any meaning.You as a church goer and believer should know this most of all. And the Roman catholic church, even though its losing members, still has alot of political power as can be seen in their stances on abortion or homosexuality.

And, don't you have a religion too, T-man? Honestly, aren't you preaching a belief system and a system of morals? Let's be fair, you do act every bit as brainwashed as the people you make fun of for being allegedly "brainwashed." Come on, fair is fair.

Yes, "our" set of morals and beliefs is based upon our own experiences and what we learned from them. The difference is that we don't search for a higher being but within ourselves for explanations to what we are and how come we are in this World. It takes alot of strength to believe in yourself aikimac without relying on someone else out there. Or another power.

Christian

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 12:10 AM

And, don't you have a religion too, T-man? Honestly, aren't you preaching a belief system and a system of morals? Let's be fair, you do act every bit as brainwashed as the people you make fun of for being allegedly "brainwashed." Come on, fair is fair.

A religion? no, a belief system? yes. is that also a system of morals? no.
Ok, i'll take that, fair is fair. I am by no means brainwashed, for 2 reasons.
1. My parents never ever forced ANY belief system on me in either direction, religion was never a hot topic when i was young and malliable. I wanted to know, so i looked into it when i was older on my own, and came to the decisions i have made completely on my own, the only outside influence was information itself. 2. I did so at a time which i was intelligent and old enough to make a decision for myself, on my own. Those i accuse of being brainwashed lack both of those. It was force feed, at an age when they knew no better.

Socrastein

06-Aug-2005, 12:14 AM

And, don't you have a religion too, T-man? Honestly, aren't you preaching a belief system and a system of morals? Let's be fair, you do act every bit as brainwashed as the people you make fun of for being allegedly "brainwashed." Come on, fair is fair.

If you define religion as torso, then yes, Tekken does have a religion. However, if by religion you actually mean religion, well then you're just being silly.

Wikipedia
Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such belief.

Also, from what I have seen of Tekken thus far, his beliefs are based in reason and evidence, rather than fallacious arguments and faith. How curious that his belief foundations are the exact opposite of brainwashing, for they are made in accordance with reason, and are not irrational in nature. Why on earth would you accuse someone who by definition doesn't have a religion of having a religion, and someone who by definition is not brainwashed of being brainwashed?

I believe you will find this (http://dictionary.reference.com/) to be very useful.

aikiMac

06-Aug-2005, 01:06 AM

..most powerful and influential religious tool still existing today. Without the vatican or the pope none of the other churches or sects would have any meaning.
Uh, I'm not Roman Catholic dude, and, you're wrong about "other churches or sects not having any meaning" without the pope or vatican. We'd get along just fine without him, or them, or whatever, thank you. See, we don't follow a person, or even an office. We follow The Invisible Man in the Sky, to borrow Tekken's phrase. If the Vatican was nuked tomorrow (God forbid) there'd still be church services every Sunday all around the planet.

It takes alot of strength to believe in yourself aikimac without relying on someone else out there. Or another power.
That's not at issue. Anyway, religious faith does not negate personal resolve. If anything, it increases personal resolve.

I am by no means brainwashed, for 2 reasons.
1. ... I wanted to know, so i looked into it when i was older on my own, and came to the decisions i have made completely on my own, the only outside influence was information itself.
2. I did so at a time which i was intelligent and old enough to make a decision for myself, on my own.
Well gosh golly, I'm not brainwashed either! I fit these two points! And so do the people in my "Sunday School" class! Dude, whodathunkit! We have something in common! :D

Socra -- you're bordering on personal attack once again. Have I not set forth arguments based on reason and evidence? Come now. And you're still not doing a good job of reading for comprehension. Check your dictionary definition again. It applies to Tekken. Let's parse it:

" Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine ..."

Yep, Tekken has put forth a belief system concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine. Yes he has. Oooo has he ever. Yep.

Continuing: "..., and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such belief."

Yep, he's done that too. He's put forth his moral values with respect to topics in other threads. Wasn't there something about when killing is justified? And something about "shagging" being his primary purpose in life? These are statements regarding moral codes and values. And we all know what he thinks about religious institutions -- whew! Let's not revisit that!

Socrastein

06-Aug-2005, 01:16 AM

You say I'm not reading for comprehension Aiki, yet you have obviously failed to properly interpret the meaning of the phrase "belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine". This does not include non-belief, lack of belief, denial, etc. If it did, then EVERYONE on the planet would be religious. If every single person on the planet is religious, then the word religion means NOTHING. If your definition of the word renders it completely useless, you need to rethink your definition.

It's quite commonly understood that the word religion refers to people who believe that there is a God, or some supernatural force out there, and they live their lives according to this said belief usually through following some sort of personal or public moral code.

Why would you want to define religion in a way that it has nothing to do with the way it is commonly used? Language is pointless when you start using words as if common understanding were unnecessary.

I suggest you get back to the world of mutual understanding and stop redefining words in your attempt to level the playing field and say Tekken or other atheists are just as religious as you, have as much faith as you, are just as irrational as you, etc. so that you might avoid carrying the burden of these concepts yourself.

Let's make it perfectly clear - assuming that we're NOT going by your personal redefinitions of words, YOU are the one with religious beliefs, not Tekken, I, or any other atheists around here. YOU are the one with faith-based beliefs, not Tekken, not I, nor any other atheists around here. And finally YOU are the one with logically-challenged (trying to be politically correct here) and parsimony-challenged beliefs here, not Tekken, not I, nor any other atheists around here.

We're dealing with analytic statements here, they're true by definition, so naturally your attempt to refute them has been an attempt to redefine the terms, nothing more.

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 01:49 AM

1. That's not at issue. Anyway, religious faith does not negate personal resolve. If anything, it increases personal resolve.

2. l gosh golly, I'm not brainwashed either! I fit these two points! And so do the people in my "Sunday School" class! Dude, whodathunkit! We have something in common! :D

3. It applies to Tekken. Let's parse it:
" Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine ..."

Yep, Tekken has put forth a belief system concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine. Yes he has. Oooo has he ever. Yep.

Continuing: "..., and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such belief."

4. Yep, he's done that too. He's put forth his moral values with respect to topics in other threads. Wasn't there something about when killing is justified? And something about "shagging" being his primary purpose in life? These are statements regarding moral codes and values. And we all know what he thinks about religious institutions -- whew! Let's not revisit that!

I kinda gotta throw the BS flag on point 1. it is an issue. and it is much more difficult to rely and believe only on and in your self. :eek:

2. Hmmm.....its possible, but very unlikely. ;)

3. It dosen't apply to me at all, the {uh oh, your favorite word :) } CONTEXT in which the definition is reffering to it is not pretaining to a lack of or non belief.

4. I have values and morals, but they have nothing to do with my lack of a belief in the supernatural. They have to do with taking care of myself and enjoying myself. :cool:

5. I'm the topic of consversation. "Hurray!!! people are paying attention to me" - Zoidberg :D

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 02:39 AM

3. It dosen't apply to me at all, the {uh oh, your favorite word :) } CONTEXT in which the definition is reffering to it is not pretaining to a lack of or non belief.
Well here's a point, you don't merely have a "lack of believe", you adamantly believe there is nothing, there can't be anything and think that anyone who believes otherwise is being irrational. I'd say that's a strong belief.

4. I have values and morals, but they have nothing to do with my lack of a belief in the supernatural. They have to do with taking care of myself and enjoying myself. :cool:
It said that religion is usually associated with the supernatural but doesn't necessarily mean so. Take Buddhism. I mean, there's the rebirth belief but that's kind of tagged on rather than the "faith" being based around it. It's more faith in a way of life than a "God" as such. I'd say that you have a similar sort of faith and you stick to it religiously.

BendzR

06-Aug-2005, 02:47 AM

Tekken, not everyone who happens to be religious is neccessarily brainwashed, even tho it is quite comon.

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 02:52 AM

Tekken, not everyone who happens to be religious is neccessarily brainwashed, even tho it is quite comon.

its quite rare, but i have acknowlaged that there are those that wern't brainwashed at birth, they are just......oh....whats the politically correct word....."Logically Challanged"

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 02:55 AM

you adamantly believe there is nothing, there can't be anything and think that anyone who believes otherwise is being irrational. I'd say that's a strong belief

That dosen't make it a "religion" trust, you guys aren't going to get anywhere with this one, i have no religion, i happen to be a strong willed individual.

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 03:19 AM

Socrastein

06-Aug-2005, 03:36 AM

It said that religion is usually associated with the supernatural but doesn't necessarily mean so. Take Buddhism. I mean, there's the rebirth belief but that's kind of tagged on rather than the "faith" being based around it. It's more faith in a way of life than a "God" as such. I'd say that you have a similar sort of faith and you stick to it religiously.

This is the reason many people would differentiate Buddhism as being a philosophy rather than a religion, especially considering the way Siddhartha stressed coming to your own conclusions through reason. He never advocated any dogma whatsoever, there was no set criterion that if you were to sway from you'd be considered a blasphemer. The Buddha specifically advocated that his students consider his teachings with reason, and if they find them to be true, then naturally they should accept them and practice them. However if they find them to be false, the Buddha encouraged they develop their own path.

Regardless, Buddhism is heavily laden with metaphysical propositions. The existence of karma, of the transcendent oneness of reality, the nature of the self and its unity with existence, as well as the matter of the soul and reincarnation - all are affirmations of religious concepts, and thus Buddhism is a religion.

Seriously, do you think that people like me, Aikimac and Captain Ann are brainwashed? Sure, you might think we've got a couple of things wrong here and there, I'd bet that everyone has somewhere or other, but brainwashed?

When you hold onto these couple of things that are wrong in the face of reason and evidence, yes, you have been brainwashed in that your beliefs have become seated in irrationality and emotion more than reason and empiricism. People who adamently believe in recycling and yet in learning that it is the humongous waste of time, money, resources, and energy it is refuse to change their mind have been brainwashed. People who adamently believe they can get toned by pumping little 5 lbs dumbells a thousand times and yet in learning that muscles do not harden or soften, but rather are covered or uncovered with fat, they still refuse to accept that they are wrong, have been brainwashed. I can apply this to countless examples, but the common theme is what's important - holding to logically-challenged beliefs even when presented with sound counterarguments and refutation. Anyone who does this holds beliefs that are bound by emotion and immune to reason - this is what it means to be brainwashed.

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 04:40 AM

So are we. Elsewise we'd be caving into your views until the next religious nut got hold of us again. Seriously, do you think that people like me, Aikimac and Captain Ann are brainwashed? Sure, you might think we've got a couple of things wrong here and there, I'd bet that everyone has somewhere or other, but brainwashed?

I know what you're saying. Some religious people are very brainwashed, haven't really thought things through and just got caught up in some "group" or "movement" or something, and it happens that they are the loudest ones when it comes to beliefs.

The majority though, they're perfectly normal. You'd meet one in the street and have no idea that they had any kind of religion or belief to them at all (unless it came up in conversation).

If you don't see how a religious belief, especially one such as christianity makes you inherintly emotionally weak and mentally unstable, you've missed alot, and i'll recap on that later if you really don't see that, or is it that you just don't want to accept it?

You know i was going to sit down and really define what i determine to be brainwashing in a good 20 minute post. but Socrastein had a nice little condensed and applied version of it in the very next post, good job socra.

"Holding to logically-challenged beliefs even when presented with sound counterarguments and refutation. Anyone who does this holds beliefs that are bound by emotion and immune to reason - this is what it means to be brainwashed"

Aikimac, claims to have come to his beliefs after reaching an age of reason, and without outside influence, i find this hard to believe, and he seems to be a calm and collected, civilized guy, but that dosen't really prove much. CaptAnn, is so fast to jump the gun and spew out half assed attempts at saving the ideal after the arguments nearly over, i don't know what to think, she is very polite and rather adamant though. :) actually i'm still waiting for a decent rational, non-self serving answer to my post about jesus lying. the answer she gave was very loaded. You, you seem to go back and forth, and you ususally lose the argument anyway, so i suppose you would appear to be the least brainwashed, the real brainwashed ones will refuse to admit defeat, you are smart enough to back out gracefully.
You have to admit that brainwashing tactics and imposed methodical indocternation is wrong reguardless of what you believe. and is about as common with organized religion as "service" being held on sunday.

Handsup

06-Aug-2005, 06:34 AM

I dont know about nobody else, but i SURE DO believe in GOD.

I love him.

God is my best friend.

I will always believe in God. He is the reason I live.

A proud Muslim.

Peace

ThaiBxr

06-Aug-2005, 07:02 AM

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 07:35 AM

I dont know about nobody else, but i SURE DO believe in GOD.

I love him.

God is my best friend.

I will always believe in God. He is the reason I live.

A proud Muslim.

Peace

wow, didn't see that coming, nice to have some more diversity, soon as i saw "God is my best friend, i got a mental image of an evangelist christian, this is new! :) But still, ROFLMAO! at "god is my best friend"

Capt Ann

06-Aug-2005, 08:04 AM

You sure that wasn't your preacher at your ... church talking to you ? Because so far as I know the only ppl claiming they speak through god or the "voice of god" are preachers. Whether that is god speaking I doubt very much because than he would have to speak in the voice of, lets say, a billion different preachers, each telling a different story to you..each having a billion different reasons to tell you something.

ChristianNo, I mean that God (the one-and-only, sovereign, Creator, topic-of-all-this-debate, Head Dude, One-in-Charge, CINCUniverse, The Big Guy,.....HIM) spoke to me. That's fairly-substantial evidence that He exists. :)

thepunisher

06-Aug-2005, 08:57 AM

Uhh, yeah we all took high school history, what's the point you're trying to make? That the Church used to have absolute power and now it doens't for which itself is slightly responsible for?. Well obviously, so what?

...of going at atheists who have logical reason/reasons NOT to believe in god maybe you should start asking yourself if there is still a reason for you to believe in god. I gave that history to make the connection between Science, which was talked about before and Religion, they are both interconnected yet each person with a belief in god seems to forget that. And there was a reason for example Martin Luther King was only acknowledged 200 yrs. after he rose up against the church. He himself was a devote monk who after turning against the church was denounced and all his discoveries where thrown to the garbage. He didn't have much of a career after that.

So tell me, if a devote monk and someone like Leonardo da Vinci discover things through science that take there belief in the church away from them how come 500 years after some of you devoted ppl here can't do the same ? Open your mind a bit and start thinking with logic because at this moment tekkengod is right, most of you are brainwashed. Most of you are a toy of the church and tekkengod is in some ways right, some of you are probably weak in character as well because you have the need to look up to someone, to believe there is someone there looking after you. Well, learn to look after yourself than you don't need "god" anymore.

Christian

thepunisher

06-Aug-2005, 09:02 AM

No, I mean that God (the one-and-only, sovereign, Creator, topic-of-all-this-debate, Head Dude, One-in-Charge, CINCUniverse, The Big Guy,.....HIM) spoke to me. That's fairly-substantial evidence that He exists. :)

Capt.Ann, I don't consider that fairly-substantial evidence at all, to be honest. Yes, I could also claim that someone in my head is talking to me but you know what most ppl would call me then ? A lunatic. And to be honest, why would god only talk to you ? To prove to you that he exists ? Well, how about this then, how come he hasn't come out then and talked to all non-believers then ? So we all start believing he is there. Do you have a tape recording of god speaking to you ? Because to be honest, just on your word here I'm NOT going to believe "god" spoke to you.

Christian

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 11:20 AM

When you hold onto these couple of things that are wrong in the face of reason and evidence, yes, you have been brainwashed in that your beliefs have become seated in irrationality and emotion more than reason and empiricism.
What do you mean "wrong face of reason and evidence".
We've all been saying from the start that there's no real evidence against God, just some say there isn't sufficient reason to believe.

People who adamently believe in recycling and yet in learning that it is the humongous waste of time, money, resources, and energy it is refuse to change their mind have been brainwashed... Anyone who does this holds beliefs that are bound by emotion and immune to reason - this is what it means to be brainwashed.[/QUOTE]
Trust me when I say that if I was given good reason to change my views then I would. I've yet to meet such reason. So to be brainwashed is to have a completely closed mind? Made up no matter what evidence?
Okies. You might've noticed that I've not said whether God exists or not. I don't pretend I know for sure. I believe but I also accept that I probably got it all wrong, because I sometimes get things wrong, and I'm sure that you do too.

You guys on the other hand, seem to insist that he doesn't exist. Not simply disbelieve yourselfs but claim to know that you know, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong/idiot/depends how harsh you're feeling/anysway... We've established that God by nature is not provable or disprovable, and you might have no reason to believe in it yourselves, but you're being completely irrational if your pretend that you know for sure because you can't.
Sure you can think you know, but that would be plain arrogance - more irrationality, thinking you you know more than you do.

So even if I'm irrational for believing you're just as irrational, maybe more, for trying to tell me that you know for a fact I'm wrong.

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 12:28 PM

Okies. I just did the whole irrational/brainwashed/etcetera thing in the last post so I'll just catch the other bits.

If you don't see how a religious belief, especially one such as christianity makes you inherintly emotionally weak and mentally unstable, you've missed alot, and i'll recap on that later if you really don't see that, or is it that you just don't want to accept it?
I don't know where this theory came from but it lacks empericism (you know, the same sort you required for belief in God to be rational). I'm not quite one myself but I've spent enough time with Christians to see that they're anything but that. They're strong willed in their faith and it doesn't hold them back in any way.

Aikimac, claims to have come to his beliefs after reaching an age of reason, and without outside influence, i find this hard to believe, and he seems to be a calm and collected, civilized guy, but that dosen't really prove much.
When you say "outside influence" you mean that he wasn't pressured or "brainwashed" into his beliefs? Most people are like that.

You, you seem to go back and forth, and you ususally lose the argument anyway,
Ahem? If by lose you mean not manage to convince everyone to see the world as I do then maybe. If you mean my arguments don't always hold then I'd say that's the same for all of us. "Back and forth"? Is that the way I agree with some bits of Christianity but not others?
I mean this is why the whole "brainwashed" thing bugs me. I came to my own ideas and yeah they maybe flawed and they might've gotten things wrong but I think for myself here.

so i suppose you would appear to be the least brainwashed, the real brainwashed ones will refuse to admit defeat, you are smart enough to back out gracefully.
I don't pretend I know everything. :)

You have to admit that brainwashing tactics and imposed methodical indocternation is wrong reguardless of what you believe. and is about as common with organized religion as "service" being held on sunday.
I agree. But I think you've got some serious mis-conceptions about it all. First off I was brought up going to sunday services (it so happens that once I was old enough to decide for myself what to believe I decided that they didn't mean anything to me and stopped going) so I can tell you a bit about the congregation.

They all respected the priests as scholars, people who had studied, thoughts about etc the scriptures and whatnot extensively (it so happens that our parish had priest who had studied through places like Oxford) but they never pretended to be anything more and the congregation never took them as anything more. At one point a fresh young graduate came in and started doing services. Young and zealous his sermon would mention "I'm not here to tell you what you want to hear. I'm not a crowd pleaser, I've come to tell you the truth." and would go on to express wrongness of contraception, how Hinduism leads to the devil. And the congregation would roll their eyes.

You see, these sermons don't brainwash people, they are often spoken to like minded people (just like if you talked martial arts tactics with someone then you'd both happen to be in MA. You wouldn't expect someone anti-MA to go to your club and start spewing how evil fighting is when you're talking technique with them because your technique talk is aimed at someone who thinks your way, not at brainwashing them, see where I'm coming from?).

Yes, some people do end up believing things because they've been told to.
Some people, especially people who are fresh in their faith, and come to believe a bit by reason so assume that the rest naturally comes with it. These guys are often zealous so end up going on a mission to save everyone. They came to a bit by reason but there's still a lot they don't know so they end up just repeating things they've been told expecting you to chew on it like they did. Even they calm down in time and accept that they don't have all the answers for everyone.

Now lets get back to this:
You have to admit that brainwashing tactics and imposed methodical indocternation is wrong reguardless of what you believe.
Another thing is that "brainwashing" isn't always intentional or conscious.
Some people simply say what they believe and argue for it, assuming that people only accept it because they've come through the same reason.

In these threads where I've argued about God, people have been labelling believers as ignorant or irrational or brainwashed. Sure, they've put forward a few reasons why they don't believe but the most part has been "at the end of the day you disagree with me because you're <insert label here>". There'd be one thing to give us counter arguments which might give us reason to change our ideas (heck, I know how much my thinking's evolved through internet arguments - half the reason why I do it) and that'd be cool. But there's also this labelling that implies "you should be agreeing with us".

So even if you're were right in your beliefs, rather than give people reasons to change (which I'm sure you're trying as well) and leave it there, leave it to their reasoning, you're not happy for them to come to that conclusion and bring in labelling and name calling. Apparently we should be coming to the same reasons as you.

Are you trying to brainwash anyone? I doubt it. But when your arguments don't make people think like you do, rather than let them be "wrong" (but "wrong" with their own thinking and reasoning) you seem to have to start calling them irrational and brainwashed as if to say "you're just plain wrong" or "you're just not thinking right"... tell them that their own reasoning and thinking has got them all confused... see where I'm going here.
You're doing what kind of does this "brainwashing" effect. Completely unintentionally but still doing it. "You think different to me? Irrational! Brainwashed!".

If you were that anti-brainwashing then you wouldn't mind so much if people had it "wrong" (as if anyone on here has it absolutely right or absolutely wrong) but you seem to want to tell them how "brainwashed" and "irrational" they are until they're thinking your way.

You get me? That's what's winding us up.
Now you might notice that I've never told you what you shouldn't be believing. If you think differently to me then fair enough. I might give a counter argument to get you thinking, but if you reject then all's fair. That's what you came up with. I don't recall Aikimac or Capt Ann try and tell people what to believe either, just say what they think and defend that view.

Now I'm going to tell you what makes me think that you are brainwashed. Incidently, it's go nothing to do with your beliefs, it's by the way that you act on them. :p

1) Your mind is closed. You insist that you've got it all sussed
Lets face it. No one really knows for sure about these things (especially as God can't be proved/disproved). I speak for myself when I say that I think there's a God but I know that I get things wrong sometimes. Not that I think I'm wrong, but I know that I don't know everything that I've still got more to learn. Maybe you are right. Maybe I'll end up with beliefs similar to yours but to be honest no one really knows. Discount the beliefs of people who disagree with you when there's nothing conclusive to settle the issue?

2) You seem to get offended by people who think differently
You hear that someone believes in God and you get all defensive. You insist that they've got it wrong and have got to be more "rational" and less "brainwashed". And it does come across defensive as if something thinking differently makes you nervous, that you might've gotten something wrong.

3) You cling to stereotypes of Christians, of "weak and brainwashed" people. Yes, I know you've met such people, I've met them too but to think that they account for the entire Christian community? It's like saying all football fans are hooligans or saying that all people who take up martial arts are big ugly brutes like on those TV fights. Stereotyping people is NOT rational.

4) And the labelling
Here's one. "Think like I do or be <irrational/damned delete depending on belief>" Again, it's not the belief that decides whether you're into this whole brainwashing thing, it's how you come about these beliefs. Yes, Christianity has famous cases of dogma and brainwashing. It wasn't the Christianity that was the problem, it was the authoritarian beliefs of those people who happened to be Christians and therefore thought that everyone else had to be Christians too.

I'm not going to dwell on it and you're free to disagree with my analysis.
I'm no psychology expert or anything but just take it as someone who's been reading your posts in this topic. This is what I made of you. Not because of what I believe or because I believe in God or because I'm a member of the midnight society of "athiests are brainwashed!!!!!11!!!111". Just what I've made of the way. That is all. :)

Okies. I just did the whole irrational/brainwashed/etcetera thing in the last post so I'll just catch the other bits.
I've no shame in saying that I get things wrong ALL the time.
You can pat yourself on the back. Getting my to rant like this means you've managed to wind me up nicely! ;)

CrowZer0

06-Aug-2005, 12:49 PM

I don't follow a particular religion although I do study, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, and have looked at all the major religions, I follow my own religion, I believe in someone up their *points to sky* and I silently pray every night, I also silently pray before I do something, important, a fight, an exam so on, I'm doing pretty damn fine, but I don't believe in blind faith. If there's no one up there you have to give me a better THEORY than the big bang crap, if that was the case, why is there so much beauty, why is the human brain so complex, why are there so many different things in this world? Why is it all so complicated?

Maverick

06-Aug-2005, 04:38 PM

Strafio, the only minor flaw to your arguments) above is that Tekken happens to be right.

ThaiBxr

06-Aug-2005, 04:52 PM

...of going at atheists who have logical reason/reasons NOT to believe in god maybe you should start asking yourself if there is still a reason for you to believe in god. I gave that history to make the connection between Science, which was talked about before and Religion, they are both interconnected yet each person with a belief in god seems to forget that. And there was a reason for example Martin Luther King was only acknowledged 200 yrs. after he rose up against the church. He himself was a devote monk who after turning against the church was denounced and all his discoveries where thrown to the garbage. He didn't have much of a career after that.

So tell me, if a devote monk and someone like Leonardo da Vinci discover things through science that take there belief in the church away from them how come 500 years after some of you devoted ppl here can't do the same ? Open your mind a bit and start thinking with logic because at this moment tekkengod is right, most of you are brainwashed. Most of you are a toy of the church and tekkengod is in some ways right, some of you are probably weak in character as well because you have the need to look up to someone, to believe there is someone there looking after you. Well, learn to look after yourself than you don't need "god" anymore.

Christian

First of all, I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God. However your point doesn't really apply. The monks didn't go out and find scientific knowledge and then say, oh boy! screw religion and screw "God", now I see the light! They said screw those beep in the church who are using those flawed celestial assumptions to control us. The beliefs that the renaissance opened the door to being ripped apart were things like, celestial bodies are perfect and unchanging, we are the center of the universe because it only makes sense as God likes us best right? These were beliefs derived from assumptions which gathered water as prior they had no way of disproving them, and people just believed what they were told. They didn't really do anything to disprove the existence of God however. They weren't related, as "God" himself had never ordained these principles. Those scientific discoveries didn't really encroach crucial religious doctrine, but rather the Church.

ThaiBxr

06-Aug-2005, 04:56 PM

I'm doing pretty damn fine, but I don't believe in blind faith. If there's no one up there you have to give me a better THEORY than the big bang crap, if that was the case, why is there so much beauty, why is the human brain so complex, why are there so many different things in this world? Why is it all so complicated?

If you think the Big Bang Theory is crap go actually do some reading up on it to see all of the strong supporting evidence it carries. I hope you're not just saying, "yeah right like there was a big boom and that's how everything just magically appeared" without really going and researching it. It's a theory which holds a considerable ammount of substance to it... unlike creationism.

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 06:15 PM

1. I'm not quite one myself but I've spent enough time with Christians to see that they're anything but that. They're strong willed in their faith and it doesn't hold them back in any way.

2. When you say "outside influence" you mean that he wasn't pressured or "brainwashed" into his beliefs? Most people are like that.

3. "Back and forth"? Is that the way I agree with some bits of Christianity but not others?

4. I agree. But I think you've got some serious mis-conceptions about it all. First off I was brought up going to sunday services

5. They all respected the priests as scholars, people who had studied, thoughts about etc the scriptures and whatnot extensively (it so happens that our parish had priest who had studied through places like Oxford) but they never pretended to be anything more and the congregation never took them as anything more. At one point a fresh young graduate came in and started doing services. Young and zealous his sermon would mention "I'm not here to tell you what you want to hear. I'm not a crowd pleaser, I've come to tell you the truth." and would go on to express wrongness of contraception, how Hinduism leads to the devil

6. You see, these sermons don't brainwash people, they are often spoken to like minded people (just like if you talked martial arts tactics with someone then you'd both happen to be in MA. You wouldn't expect someone anti-MA to go to your club and start spewing how evil fighting is when you're talking technique with them because your technique talk is aimed at someone who thinks your way, not at brainwashing them, see where I'm coming from?).

7. Yes, some people do end up believing things because they've been told to.

8. Another thing is that "brainwashing" isn't always intentional or conscious.
Some people simply say what they believe and argue for it, assuming that people only accept it because they've come through the same reason.

9. But there's also this labelling that implies "you should be agreeing with us".

10. Are you trying to brainwash anyone? I doubt it. But when your arguments don't make people think like you do, rather than let them be "wrong" (but "wrong" with their own thinking and reasoning) you seem to have to start calling them irrational and brainwashed as if to say "you're just plain wrong" or "you're just not thinking right"... tell them that their own reasoning and thinking has got them all confused... see where I'm going here.
You're doing what kind of does this "brainwashing" effect. Completely unintentionally but still doing it. "You think different to me? Irrational! Brainwashed!".

11. If you were that anti-brainwashing then you wouldn't mind so much if people had it "wrong" (as if anyone on here has it absolutely right or absolutely wrong) but you seem to want to tell them how "brainwashed" and "irrational" they are until they're thinking your way.

12. You get me? That's what's winding us up.
Now you might notice that I've never told you what you shouldn't be believing. If you think differently to me then fair enough. I might give a counter argument to get you thinking, but if you reject then all's fair. That's what you came up with. I don't recall Aikimac or Capt Ann try and tell people what to believe either, just say what they think and defend that view.

13. 1) Your mind is closed. You insist that you've got it all sussed
Lets face it. No one really knows for sure about these things (especially as God can't be proved/disproved). I speak for myself when I say that I think there's a God but I know that I get things wrong sometimes. Not that I think I'm wrong, but I know that I don't know everything that I've still got more to learn. Maybe you are right. Maybe I'll end up with beliefs similar to yours but to be honest no one really knows. Discount the beliefs of people who disagree with you when there's nothing conclusive to settle the issue?

14. 2) You seem to get offended by people who think differently
You hear that someone believes in God and you get all defensive. You insist that they've got it wrong and have got to be more "rational" and less "brainwashed". And it does come across defensive as if something thinking differently makes you nervous, that you might've gotten something wrong.

15. 3) You cling to stereotypes of Christians, of "weak and brainwashed" people. Yes, I know you've met such people, I've met them too but to think that they account for the entire Christian community? It's like saying all football fans are hooligans or saying that all people who take up martial arts are big ugly brutes like on those TV fights. Stereotyping people is NOT rational.

16. 4) And the labelling
Yes, Christianity has famous cases of dogma and brainwashing. It wasn't the Christianity that was the problem, it was the authoritarian beliefs of those people who happened to be Christians and therefore thought that everyone else had to be Christians too.

17. I've no shame in saying that I get things wrong ALL the time.
You can pat yourself on the back. Getting my to rant like this means you've managed to wind me up nicely! ;)

wow, thats a mother of a post there man! it took me a few minutes just to finish reading it. But i'll take the time to rebutle since you went to all that time!

1. EXACTLY "strong in their faith" not in themselves, as i've said, the more stable and strong a person is emotionally, the less of a need they have for a belief in god. they look to themselves, not the clouds. I think Ikken said it best

Originally Posted by Ikken Hisatsu
"why try to aim for the clouds when you are quite comfortable walking in the fog"

2. A massive amount i'd say about 9/10 christians i've met, where taught so from childhood on and never had a choice, their feeble minds at the ripe old age of 7 where beaten with bibles and the concepts of its doctrine, they never had a chance, wasted minds, not because of the beliefs, but because they were force feed a concept and brainwashed into believing them to be true. very sad.

3. Thats what i was getting at yes.
4.THERE!! you agree, and you admit to being made to go to service as a child {and no as a young child you did not "decide to go" you knew no better and followed as you where taught to go with the routine of a schedule. no child can do that at the age of 5 or 6.

5. I understand that there are a number of those who don't force the belief, and simply aim to educate, i've met those people as well, they don't force it, they are normal people, and the only group of people who has any potential to be a redeeming group for christianity. but there numbers are far and few. The insane, zealous ones you described are more prevelent by a long shot, no comparison nesseccary. and its people like that who produce people who never even think of questioning their beliefs.

6. AH!! But they DO! That was a good analogy, and i see where you where going with that one, but think about it, lets say an amount, lets say 45% of those people {for the sake of argument} don't agree that hinduisim leads to the devil. they don't agree with the priest, nor the church's position, do you really think anyone is going to say "you're wrong" in a room full of those people, and in a chuch none the less? NO. even if they said something one on one, the seed has already been planted and those who are younger, or just more easily swayed, are going to consider it a possibility, and then combined with the preists reasoning behind it, analyze it, re-analyze it, and eventually accept it.

7. Exactly, and its still the result of an imposed ideal on an impressionable person. weak minded people bend to new ideas by word of mouth, see what i mean?

8. but it still yeilds the desired result none the less.
9.not at all. you'll never see me argue with a hindu, a buddist, a musilim, a jew, a jedi, an agnostic. not a one, becasue those religions do not espouse the negatives i find in christianity and catholicisim.

10. that is because most often, their thinking process is skewed and has been manipulated. you can think diffrently, i won't call you brainwashed, but when you admit to being involved with a group of people universally famous for brainwashing people, you have to look at the details and figure out weather or not they are for yourself.

11.I just want those people to have some inkiling, some idea that maybe they have indeed been manipulated {because NO ONE wants to admit to being manipulated or brainwashed}

12. and thats usually all that i do as well, but when someone make a border line insane remark like "god talks to me in my head. he tells me he loves me" or "god is my best friend" it should be everyone elses {those still within the grasp of sanity} to say something.

13. Thats the thing here, its immune to logic by nature, making it the most illogical idea of all. I could come up with any number of ideas, involving giant mushrooms living at the core of jupiter on another plain of existance that only i can see because my eyes where blessed when i was in a trance a few days ago.....see what i mean? equally ridiculous, equally unproveable, equally pointless.

14. not in the slightest.

15. Well, when its a generalization that tends to be true a good 90% of the time, it isn't so much a generalization, if there were more people who where comfortable beleiving in themselves and with the fact that no one cares about them, then there would be no need for religion. period. Kinda like its safe to say that the nazis where a crazy bunch of racists. how do we know that? we've seen and heard them act. same point.

16. Alright then, we agree on that. those people never should have been in the position to do so in the first place, but that was 500 years ago, now its sewn into the fabric of the religion.

17. Neither do I. everyone does. for a rant it was surprising insightful and well thought out. :)

CrowZer0

06-Aug-2005, 06:16 PM

If you think the Big Bang Theory is crap go actually do some reading up on it to see all of the strong supporting evidence it carries. I hope you're not just saying, "yeah right like there was a big boom and that's how everything just magically appeared" without really going and researching it. It's a theory which holds a considerable ammount of substance to it... unlike creationism.
Lmao, I did a lot of research, I have studied the big bang theory, I did a project on it got A, don't try and tell me I dont know what I'm talking about.

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 06:19 PM

Strafio, the only minor flaw to your arguments) above is that Tekken happens to be right.

:) thankyou.

thepunisher

06-Aug-2005, 06:48 PM

Lmao, I did a lot of research, I have studied the big bang theory, I did a project on it got A, don't try and tell me I dont know what I'm talking about.

PDF, if as you say you did a project on it and researched it care to fill all of us in why its "crap", as you put it ? It for sure makes from a scientific point-of-view concerning cell division and what we know about stars alot of more sense than creationism. Maybe you should also read up about Darwins theory of evolution, maybe than the big bang theory won't seem crap to you.

Christian

ThaiBxr

06-Aug-2005, 07:08 PM

Lmao, I did a lot of research, I have studied the big bang theory, I did a project on it got A, don't try and tell me I dont know what I'm talking about.

then you would know it's the most supported and plausible theory in existence, but you don't seem to.

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 07:38 PM

Strafio, the only minor flaw to your arguments above is that Tekken happens to be right.
So everything he says is perfectly 100% logically flawless and undisputably precise? You trying to say that he's superhuman? I mean, if he's got THE absolute truth nailed like that then we should ALL be believing what he says...

If you were paying attention:
You have to admit that brainwashing tactics and imposed methodical indocternation is wrong reguardless of what you believe.
This stopped being a case of "who's got it right" ages ago, because lets face it, there's no conclusive answer. It's beyond logic so there's no "right" or "wrong" about it, or atleast that we can know.

This rant was about respect of beliefs. He seemed to have a problem with me believing what I believed but at the same time had a problem with brainwashing (i.e. putting pressure on people to believe certain things). It was like he didn't want other people telling him what to believe.

What's more important to you? What someone believes or how they came to that conclusion? Would you rather someone just took your word for something and agreed with you or would you rather they did their own thinking, made their own decision, even if it disagreed with what you think?
So being called irrational or brainwashed because I believed in a God didn't go down too well, because I've not been told what to believe.

And there are plenty of people who are athiests, which might seem a more rational belief only you talk to them and you find that they just think so because "the scientists said so" and just take their word for it rather than think properly for themselves or have their own beliefs.

Maverick

06-Aug-2005, 08:16 PM

In this case Strafio Tekkengod is right in saying what he has about the big bang, evolution, brainwashing/indoctrination, atheism.

Can we quit with the lovey-dovey, "nobody is right at the end of the day", "everyone's opinion is just as valid" crap because it's garbage. Of course some people are right and some people are wrong.

I'm not that well versed on the technicalities of debate (like Socrastein is) but I know enough to know that the arguments put forward for creationism, the existence of God, miracles etc, are all full of fallacies and holes and are driven by emotion, indoctrination and personal incredulity and not reason.

Since there is no other plausible alternative to evolution, the Big Bang and atheism then yes I think I can say that Tekkengod is right in most of what he says regarding this subject. He goes about it a bit differently to how I do, but that's besides the point.

Think about it for a second - if believing in things like God, Creationism and other assorted mythology was the rational thing to do, then all scientists, or almost all of them, would be firm believers, because science is solely about coming to logical conclusions about things. Alas they are not.

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 08:16 PM

Just a few questions TG had about my personal life I can set straight.

3. Thats what i was getting at yes.(Going back and forth)
That makes it sound like I keep changing my mind. There's somethings I think Christians have got right, other things I think they haven't but at the end of the day I respect their beliefs so I'd give them reasons why I disagree with them but never claim they they're outright wrong, because for all we know they could be right.

4.THERE!! you agree, and you admit to being made to go to service as a child {and no as a young child you did not "decide to go" you knew no better and followed as you where taught to go with the routine of a schedule. no child can do that at the age of 5 or 6.
Yeah, mum and dad liked to go to church and they'd take me with them. If I'd been "brainwashed" then:
1) I'd still be going
2) I'd be preaching Catholic values
But I wasn't. Once I decided Church wasn't for me I wasn't forced to chew on anything I didn't believe in.

5. I understand that there are a number of those who don't force the belief, and simply aim to educate, i've met those people as well, they don't force it, they are normal people, and the only group of people who has any potential to be a redeeming group for christianity. but there numbers are far and few.
As someone who's been brought up around Christians and even went through a Christian school I can tell you you've got this wrong. They are the majority but they aren't so vocal about their beliefs. Chances are you've met thousands of them without even knowing that they are Christians because they didn't feel the need to bombard you with their faith. As someone who knows Christians better than you do, trust me on this one. ;)

The insane, zealous ones you described are more prevelent by a long shot, no comparison nesseccary. and its people like that who produce people who never even think of questioning their beliefs.
I've spent time with these sorts too. They're the minority but because they're louder and bombard you with their beliefs, they're the ones who stand out. So they give the lasting impression.

6. AH!! But they DO! That was a good analogy, and i see where you where going with that one, but think about it, lets say an amount, lets say 45% of those people {for the sake of argument} don't agree that hinduisim leads to the devil. they don't agree with the priest, nor the church's position, do you really think anyone is going to say "you're wrong" in a room full of those people, and in a chuch none the less?
We have respect for the speaker so we don't interrupt if we don't agree with them. Also they don't expect priests to be perfect so they don't mind if they say something that they disagree with. It also happened that another priest brought it up next week and said how priests even disagree amongst themselves sometimes and that he personally had no problem Hinduism.

NO. even if they said something one on one, the seed has already been planted and those who are younger, or just more easily swayed, are going to consider it a possibility, and then combined with the preists reasoning behind it, analyze it, re-analyze it, and eventually accept it.
I think you credit the priest with a little too much influence. There wasn't one person I met who agreed with it, and if they did then the chances are that they thought that way anyway. It you met the people in my church then you'd be surprised. Sure, they'd challenge your lack of belief if you brought it up but they wouldn't expect you to believe anything.

9.not at all. you'll never see me argue with a hindu, a buddist, a musilim, a jew, a jedi, an agnostic. not a one, becasue those religions do not espouse the negatives i find in christianity and catholicisim.
This one got me a bit. Hindus, Muslims, Jews and some Buddhists believe in God. Do you think they'd've taken to having their belief being called irrational or brainwashed?
As it happens, every religion/belief/group (that includes martial arts, sports teams etc) have zealots with crazy beliefs that try to shout everyone down.

The thing with you is that most of your experience of annoying zealots were Christians so that's tarred your image of them. So imagine these zealots and imagine that instead of trying to make you a Christian that they demanded you worship Allah or burn in hell or insisted that you must get circumcised or face the wrath of God. It's not the Christianity that's the problem it's zealots in general who insist on forcing their opinions on people.

My point was, labelling people with beliefs that you don't agree with, well it's kind of the same trick the zealots use (even if it's not intentional). Some impressionable people might not want to be though of as "irrational" so they ditch their old beliefs and just believe what you believe.

So what would you rather they agreed with what you were saying, or that they think for themselves and came to their own conclusion through their own thought (even if it meant that they wound up Christian ;))?
That was my only point, someone who's anti-brainwashing ought not to look down on any beliefs, even if they come from a "brainwashed" source because then it's like you're trying to washed out their previous brainwash with your own brand... it's like you've sunk to their level if you get me...

17. Neither do I. everyone does.
Then stop assuming that because I (or Aikimac or Capt Ann) believe in something that doesn't make sense to you that we've been brainwashed! :p

for a rant it was surprising insightful and well thought out. :) Thanksyou. Your replies weren't so bad themselves, sort of made it clearer where you were coming from. I think you're mostly reasonable, just had one too many bad experiences with Christian zealots (trust me, if they were Jedi zealots trying to make you feel the force then they'd annoy your just as much, I promise! ;))

tekkengod

06-Aug-2005, 08:29 PM

i don't have alot of time right now, i'll reply to this later. but you skipped 10 -16!!! whats with that??

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 08:36 PM

In this case Strafio Tekkengod is right in saying what he has about the big bang, evolution, brainwashing/indoctrination, atheism. So I should take your word for it now? Are you the great wise authority here? The fact is is that I agree with him on the big bang, evolution but that's not the point. The point is letting people come to their own conclusions through their own reasoning - anti brainwashing, right? But if you start badgering people and calling them irrational, brainwashed or ignorant just because they came to a different conclusion to you, well that really encourages people to think for themselves...

Can we quit with the lovey-dovey, "nobody is right at the end of the day", "everyone's opinion is just as valid" crap because it's garbage. Of course some people are right and some people are wrong.
It's not "lovey-dovey" PCness. It's common sense. Are you the wise guru who can tell for sure which of us are right and which are wrong? Are you the holder of that sacred absolute truth? :eek:

The point was anti-brainwashing so accepting that everyone is to have their own opinion should be specially important.

I'm not that well versed on the technicalities of debate (like Socrastein is) but I know enough to know that the arguments put forward for creationism, the existence of God, miracles etc, are all full of fallacies and holes and are driven by emotion, indoctrination and personal incredulity and not reason.
I probably have the same view on creationism as you. Thing is, although I'd give the creationist reasons why I didn't agree with their theory, I wouldn't be disrespectful to the conclusions they came up with because:
1) I respect that they think what they think
2) There's the slightest chance that someone's missed something and they're on to something. I think I'm right but I'm not so foolish/arrogant to take it for granted.

Since there is no other plausible alternative to evolution, the Big Bang and atheism then yes I think I can say that Tekkengod is right in most of what he says regarding this subject. He goes about it a bit differently to how I do, but that's besides the point.
So you agree with him. It is beside the point though. The point is is that you're making assumptions on how people came to their beliefs based on things that have happened to one or two people. Is that supposed to be logical or rational?

Think about it for a second - if believing in things like God, Creationism and other assorted mythology was the rational thing to do, then all scientists, or almost all of them, would be firm believers, because science is solely about coming to logical conclusions about things. Alas they are not.
As it happens there's a lot of scientists who believe in God, and I don't even mean the ones who were raised a Christian and then studied biology to be a doctor and try to plug creationism. There's hundreds of quotes from famous scientists who's studies led them to believe in a God of some sort (some Christians have books full of them).

At the end of the day it's plain arrogance.
As arrogant as those Christian zealots who claim to know the "absolute truth" .

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 08:37 PM

i don't have alot of time right now, i'll reply to this later. but you skipped 10 -16!!! whats with that??

I didn't think they needed an answer or in some cases I was writing the same thing I'd be writing later, so I thought I'd keep it concise and stop myself from repeating things over and over because that just gets annoying. :)

If I missed a particular point you were thinking about then let me know.

BendzR

06-Aug-2005, 11:25 PM

Strafio, I got the impression you are a Christian. If not, then this post has no meaning, but if you are, then I theres a small issue.

Christians, have to believe in Adam and Eve as a literal event. If you do not believe in no-death-before-sin, then there's no original sin. If Evolution is true, then death was well in existance before man ever sinned, which ruines the entire story. Jesus is rendered completely out of the picture. Christianity falls flat on its face.

Since you probably don't believe that Adam and Eve were around, and then the first death was a result of their original sin, it would also explain your issues with judgement to a degree. I make this assumption based on ur stances on creationism.

If you're not Christian, as I know believer-of-God does not equal Christian, then no worries. Just thought I'd point out the above.

CrowZer0

06-Aug-2005, 11:26 PM

Maverick

06-Aug-2005, 11:31 PM

lol.

Strafio

06-Aug-2005, 11:40 PM

Strafio, I got the impression you are a Christian. If not, then this post has no meaning, but if you are, then I theres a small issue.
I'm not really. You only have to read my Judgement topic to see what I think of this whole "sin" thing, but I've spent time with Christians so I'll tell you an answer I've come across before.

Christians, have to believe in Adam and Eve as a literal event. If you do not believe in no-death-before-sin, then there's no original sin. If Evolution is true, then death was well in existance before man ever sinned, which ruines the entire story. Jesus is rendered completely out of the picture. Christianity falls flat on its face.
There is an interpretation to it that isn't so literal. There's the whole day being metaphoric or as a measure of time. As to Adam and Eve, it represents when humankind started "rebelling" against God, kind of breaking the "perfect" relationship we used to have.

Being more Buddhist I kind of relate it to the point where mankind develloped a "conscience" and where "suffering" began. Before this point there was death and pain, but it was almost purely a motor reflex... we didn't really "suffer" as such. Once we develloped a concept of death and pain, well that was when we could genuinely suffer because we'd notice it... we'd lost our blissful innocence. It's comparable to a toddler who can run around and fall down without fear, to an adult who'd worry about hurting themselves if they fell...

And if you notice the tree in Eden was the Tree of Knowledge. Once Adam and Eve lost their innocence things wouldn't seem like a blissful heaven anymore. Now they had fear of death etc...
That's my take on it anysway. :)

Since you probably don't believe that Adam and Eve were around, and then the first death was a result of their original sin, it would also explain your issues with judgement to a degree. I make this assumption based on ur stances on creationism.
Ah, you'd seen the topic already. :)
Although my stances on judgement and creationism were seperate, now you mention it they do kind of go together.

thepunisher

06-Aug-2005, 11:42 PM

Actualy I have read Charles Darwins theory on evolution and it's all based on this "missing link" that was never found, I also don't like that, and as for the big bang theory I have neither the time nor the inclanation to educate you heretics, it's too time consuming.

Then I guess all of us "heretics" are lucky that we at least know the detail on that ourselves and don't need to ask you about it although from your reaction I gather actually that you have no clue about it either. At least, lets say it like this, your answer is not actually the most original nor does it help in any way concerning the currenct conversation. Glad to know though that you are of a knowledge none of us are ! :Angel:

Christian

Knight_Errant

07-Aug-2005, 12:05 AM

I believe in the squat god. He usually manifests himself as a 7 foot olympic bar, but he is portrayed as an athlete below parallel. I'm very devout. I try and worship at his temple every day. To my shame, I can't afford the proper sacrificial altar, so I make do with a cheap one manufactured by york barbell. But I believe that the squat god, magnificent be his name, overlooks such things and loves all of his children equally.
A devotional image of the squat god;

NaughtyKnight

07-Aug-2005, 12:08 AM

LOL Priceless!

CrowZer0

07-Aug-2005, 12:59 AM

Lol I'm a believer, I accept science just not one out there to try proving religion wrong:).

thepunisher

07-Aug-2005, 09:48 AM

Lol I'm a believer, I accept science just not one out there to try proving religion wrong:).

Crom is the mighty god I follow ! :D He has granted the strength in my sword arm and the fire in my heart.....He is the almighty mountain god of Cimmeria. Behold crom. :) :)

Conan...I mean Christian. :D :D

NaughtyKnight

07-Aug-2005, 11:41 AM

I think im going to move the the Amazon and worship the women there.:D

Maybe they will make me a sex slave instead of killing me :D.

thepunisher

07-Aug-2005, 11:50 AM

I...declare my new god..hicks..to be guiness...he is mighty with his taste, with his strength both in knocking me down after a couple too many...hicks..and his mind-numbing powers within its liquid....hicks...he is the almighty guiness...worship him now and get me a pint !!! And no sharing... :D :D :D

Christian..hicks ! :D

NaughtyKnight

07-Aug-2005, 11:57 AM

Nah mate. The only beer that should be god is......

http://www.terrace.qld.edu.au/academic/english/Images/vb.jpeg

Wax

07-Aug-2005, 01:56 PM

Dammit KnightCommander, I thought you were a New South Welshman... guess not when your drinking that camels... ahem... "For a hard earned thirst... drink something tastier than this." or should it be "For a thirst earned at minumum wage."

On topic, I'm an athiest. Went to a catholic school but never had faith.

Socrastein

07-Aug-2005, 03:54 PM

What do you mean "wrong face of reason and evidence".
We've all been saying from the start that there's no real evidence against God, just some say there isn't sufficient reason to believe.

When every reason you have to believe is shown to be invalid reasoning. For example, the claim that God just HAD to have created the universe because it's impossible for it to have arisen naturally. Well, that argument is logically and empirically flawed. It's a fallacious deduction in more than one way, and further cosmology has shown that it IS possible for the universe to have arisen naturally as a random quantum tunneling of energy from a energyless, matterless void. As in, it popped into existence from nothing. Seems counter-intuitive, but it's logically and empirically consistent with all current scientific data. However, many people will hear this and still insist the universe needed a creator, and they will hold to their creator beliefs, and this is what I mean by beliefs that are wrong in the face of reason and evidence.

You guys on the other hand, seem to insist that he doesn't exist. Not simply disbelieve yourselfs but claim to know that you know, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong/idiot/depends how harsh you're feeling/anysway... We've established that God by nature is not provable or disprovable, and you might have no reason to believe in it yourselves, but you're being completely irrational if your pretend that you know for sure because you can't.

Nobody in here has said they know for sure. I don't insist God doesn't exist, I insist that it's irrational to believe in a completely unsupported and unparsimonious proposition. Until I am given reason to believe it is not unsupported or unparsimonious, I will continue to think this. However, if I ever in my life here a sound argument for the existence of God, I will be the first to rethink my views on theism. I don't see that happening anytime soon however.

[quoote]So even if I'm irrational for believing you're just as irrational, maybe more, for trying to tell me that you know for a fact I'm wrong.[/quote]

That's easily the most popular "argument" in this thread thus far. "I'm irrational? Oh yeah, well if I am than you are too so that makes it okay!" Even if you did establish this without resorting to bad arguments, it still wouldn't make you any less irrational. It's called the ad hominem fallacy, more specifically ad hominem tu quoque - trying to refute an accusation by showing the speaker is guilty of it. Obviously this doesn't refute the accusation, it's nothing more than a cheap distraction tactic.

And the only way you and others have managed to make your ad hominem attacks is through straw men representations of what I and Tekkengod have been saying.

Are you trying to brainwash anyone? I doubt it. But when your arguments don't make people think like you do, rather than let them be "wrong" (but "wrong" with their own thinking and reasoning) you seem to have to start calling them irrational and brainwashed as if to say "you're just plain wrong" or "you're just not thinking right"... tell them that their own reasoning and thinking has got them all confused... see where I'm going here.
You're doing what kind of does this "brainwashing" effect. Completely unintentionally but still doing it. "You think different to me? Irrational! Brainwashed!".

Logic is not relative, nor is science. If your arguments are fallacious, there not just fallacious to me, or fallacious to someone else, they're fallacious PERIOD. If your arguments are nonparsimonious, they are so by their nature, not by our personal preferences and worldviews. So it's not about people having their own ways of thinking, there own ways of using logic, because logic is not relative or subjective. So if you give me X argument for God, and that argument uses invalid reasoning or ridiculous premises, then your argument is unsound and it's not a good reason to believe in God. If you're using unsound arguments, you're being irrational. If you're sticking to them even when it's clearly demonstrated why they're wrong, then you've obviously been brainwashed somehow into holding to these failed illogical beliefs. It's that simple. Nobody says anyone is brainwashed because they think different. I've quite specifically explained EXACTLY what I mean by irrational, illogical, and brainwashed. Why do you keep resorting to straw men fallacies to make your point? You're irrational if you're using illogical arguments, by definition. And as I explained, when you hold onto these beliefs for emotional reasons, and disregard the fact that they are unreasonable, you are coming across as brainwashed. It has nothing to do with simply disagreeing, otherwise I'd call everyone who likes different toppings on their pizza than I do brainwashed, which is surely not the case.

1) Your mind is closed. You insist that you've got it all sussed

Straw man. I've explained why this is false. And if you wish to test the openness of our minds, then give us a sound argument for God and see if we still reject it. If it is sound and we reject it, we're being irrational and we've brainwashed ourselves. If it is sound and we accept it, then we're obviously practicing what we preach.

2) You seem to get offended by people who think differently

Straw man. The thing that offends me is invalid arguments.

3) You cling to stereotypes of Christians, of "weak and brainwashed"

Straw man. This has nothing to do with streotypes, this has to do with people with irrational arguments being irrational. That's not a streotype, that's a true-by-definition statement.

4) And the labelling
Here's one. "Think like I do or be <irrational/damned delete depending on belief>"

4 little straw men all lined up in a row. Like I have said numerous times, it's more like "Use sound, logical arguments or you by definition are being irrational".

If there's no one up there you have to give me a better THEORY than the big bang crap, if that was the case, why is there so much beauty, why is the human brain so complex, why are there so many different things in this world? Why is it all so complicated?

You want a better theory than the big bang? What could be better than a logically consistent, empirically supported and unfalsified theory? If it gets better than that, please tell me and I'll get back to you with whether or not there is a better theory out there. However, as far as science is concerned, it is the best theory, it's not crap. I suspect (May be wrong however) that you know very little about cosmology or logic, seeing as how you think such a strongly supported theory is crap, and seeing as how you're fallaciously appealing to the argument from design in your post. It's a non-sequitur called affirming the consequent. "If God made the universe, it'd be really really complex. The universe is really really complext, therefore God made the universe." This is invalid reasoning, and it's the argument implied by your post when you appeal to how complicated everything is. The only way the argument works is with an "If and only if" conditional before "God made the universe". However, creation is NOT the only possible explanation for the intricacies of reality, therefore you have NO rational reason to conclude that God created this universe. That argument is fallacious in other ways but I only need to show one to render it useless.

Lmao, I did a lot of research, I have studied the big bang theory, I did a project on it got A, don't try and tell me I dont know what I'm talking about.

I'd love to hear your scientific rebuttal of the Big Bang, and I'd love to hear when you're going to release it to the scientific community for peer review so that you might win the nobel prize in physics.

This rant was about respect of beliefs. He seemed to have a problem with me believing what I believed but at the same time had a problem with brainwashing (i.e. putting pressure on people to believe certain things).

Another straw man... Brainwashing is not about putting pressure on people to believe things. I was pressured in math class to learn the multiplication tables, that was not brainwashing. It's when you are fed ILLOGICAL views in a way that you do not question them or consent to them through reason but rather through emotion and indoctrination that you are being brainwashed. When reason is taken out of the equation, it becomes brainwashing. Try and be careful about attacking what we're not saying.

Can we quit with the lovey-dovey, "nobody is right at the end of the day", "everyone's opinion is just as valid" crap because it's garbage. Of course some people are right and some people are wrong.

THANK YOU! 18 brownie points from Sock to Mav.

Actualy I have read Charles Darwins theory on evolution and it's all based on this "missing link" that was never found, I also don't like that, and as for the big bang theory I have neither the time nor the inclanation to educate you heretics, it's too time consuming.

I don't know what you read but Darwin did not base his theory on the "missing link". He based it on observation of adaptations of various species to their environment and the possible effects of the environment on variations within organisms that manifests itself in natural selection. I get a strong feeling you don't know anything about evolution or cosmology, you are just pretending to so that we might think you have a credible opinion. Unfortunately for you, you're not pulling off the charade very well and it's very apparent in what you say that you know nothing of what you speak. Could you define missing link by the way? Just curious. After defining it, could you tell us all why it disproves or even harms evolution in any way?