Quoting from the Bible - DPChallenge Forums

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/08/2008 06:41:14 AM · #579

I think that this conversation needs to take into account some additional factual matters. The charges against religion are far greater than â��it cannot be proven scientifically that god does not existâ�� (miscast though that may be).

(1) It has been demonstrated scientifically that there is no statistically significant intervention by any god on behalf of believers in the modern world. God has conveniently changed from being interventionist to non-interventionist at about the same rate as tools by which any intervention can be objectively assessed have come into existence. It is hard to believe that an interventionist god ever existed.

(2) A light study of history clearly shows that the rise and fall of key religious concepts has more to do with the political machinations than any refinement of theology. For example, key tenets of Western Christianity have more to do with the politics of Rome in 4CE and Germany and England in 16CE than with the actions of the historical Jesus in 1CE.

I would argue that all religions share their roots in the manipulation of powerful human emotions of love and fear through promises of an afterlife by power and wealth hungry shamanic individuals. These human motivations are readily observable in society today and in the modern cult leader. It is no great leap of imagination or logic to see that the same thing was happening 2k years ago for the same reasons involving people with the same, very human, motives.

Todayâ��s religion is no more than yesterdayâ��s shamanic cult.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

08/08/2008 08:43:35 AM · #580

Originally posted by Matthew:

(1) It has been demonstrated scientifically that there is no statistically significant intervention by any god on behalf of believers in the modern world.

More accurately stated that would be "it has been demonstrated scientifically that there is no statistically significant scientifically measurable intervention by any god on behalf of believers in the modern world".
I could just as easily dismiss Love, Hate, Pity, etc. as having no measurable intervention in the modern world.
Belief in God, however, like Love, Hate, Pity, etc. produce scientifically measurable changes in regions of the human brain. AND the RESULTS of Belief in God, Love, Hate, Pity, etc. ARE quite easily observable by any sentient being - apart from Science.

Originally posted by Matthew:

God has conveniently changed from being interventionist to non-interventionist at about the same rate as tools by which any intervention can be objectively assessed have come into existence.

God hasn't changed one bit. He still intervenes in the lives of believers ( and non-believers, as well ). It's just that He chooses to do so in ways that are not scientifically measurable - probably to confound those who demand "proof" before they will believe.

Originally posted by Matthew:

It is hard to believe that an interventionist god ever existed.

And impossible to believe, if you require scientific proof before you'll believe.

Originally posted by Matthew:

(2) A light study of history clearly shows that the rise and fall of key religious concepts has more to do with the political machinations than any refinement of theology. For example, key tenets of Western Christianity have more to do with the politics of Rome in 4CE and Germany and England in 16CE than with the actions of the historical Jesus in 1CE.
Todayâ��s religion is no more than yesterdayâ��s shamanic cult.

Religion is to belief in God as science is to belief in Gravity. One can believe in God without the need for religion or being under the influence of religious leaders, just as one can believe in gravity without the need for science or being under the influence of scientists.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I would argue that all religions share their roots in the manipulation of powerful human emotions of love and fear through promises of an afterlife by power and wealth hungry shamanic individuals. These human motivations are readily observable in society today and in the modern cult leader. It is no great leap of imagination or logic to see that the same thing was happening 2k years ago for the same reasons involving people with the same, very human, motives.

I would hope that you'd agree that scientists have often played as strong a part in politics as religion - one need only look at the U.S. Dept of Environmental Protection for proof - and I won't even go into the politics surrounding the Global Warming ( renamed Climate Change ) issue.
And scientists are not constrained by an equivalent to the so-called "separation of church and state" that constrains religion.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 08:48:33.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

08/08/2008 09:17:10 AM · #581

Originally posted by RonB:

Religion is to belief in God as science is to belief in Gravity.

When you say things like this, you seriously undermine your credibility.

You don't have to be shown the existence of gravity, but it CAN be proven.

You can NOT, however, prove the existence of God.

That's the faith part.....I believe in God based on many things......none of them are scientific.

Gravity is a rule......8>)

08/08/2008 09:41:08 AM · #582

Originally posted by RonB:

So by grouping time into the same categlry with length, width, temperature, (etc.) do you really mean to imply that length is eternal? width is eternal? temperature is eternal? etc.?

Dude. It's a measurement, not a thing. You could never have a bottle of time or width or smooth or 3. It's just a way to describe something. If there are 3 galaxies, you can say there are 3 galaxies, but before there were any galaxies, you can't say the number 3 itself didn't exist- it never did and still doesn't (you could still say there WEREN'T 3 galaxies). Same goes for time. If you have no events to measure, then you simply have nothing to describe in terms of elapsed time. Humans tend to think of time relative to the beginning of our universe (the context you're using here), but time itself is a descriptive term that has no beginning. You can still refer to 6 years and 14 seconds "before" the beginning of our universe.

EPIPHANY: God is pretty much in the same boat IMO: not a thing that exists, but a term used to describe something(s) (perceived forces, spirits, reasons for events). Things that exist are measurable and can be described in terms of mass, dimension and time (even if we lack the technology to do so). God is necessarily defined as UNknowable, not an physical thing but a philosophical one: a concept always described in terms of what we believe... about as subjective as you can get. You could probably put emotion into the same category. You'll never have a bottle of love, but we can measure increased heart rates, perspiration, etc. and subjectively agree to describe a particular group of conditions as love. Same deal with spirits: we perceive ourselves as a separate "entity" peering out through the window of our senses and describe that perception as a "spirit,"even though scientifically our perceptions are nothing more than how our brains interpret the electrochemical signals picked up by our sensor organs. We think, therefore we are... and if we believe God exists, then He does... and we cannot argue away the description any more that we could deny the existence of time or love. The only real difference is that how much we collectively agree on what we're describing. Time is simple: we set defined standards relative to something (currently the frequency of Cesium). Love is a much less standardized description, so what you consider love, others will call lust, a crush, affection, etc. God is the least standardized of the bunch, and the description is about as varied as individuals. To whatever extent, you may agree with a particular description, you might associate with or reject others who believe the same.

Note however that descriptions don't have to apply to existing things: spirits, witches, luck, etc., yet belief in them can have significant consequences. I just heard on the radio that many Chinese women have scheduled c-sections for today (8/8/08) because 8 is a lucky number in China (nevermind the gestational development of the babies). Poor kids. Likewise, people have attributed lightning, tornadoes and other phenomena to God, and as we have come to understand the real reasons, those traditional beliefs are modified or reinterpreted to varying degrees. If lightning strikes down a dictator, it's God's punishment, but if a tornado strikes a church, it's God calling his children home. God never changes, but the definition does.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 09:52:17.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/08/2008 09:46:40 AM · #583

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by RonB:
Religion is to belief in God as science is to belief in Gravity.

When you say things like this, you seriously undermine your credibility.

You don't have to be shown the existence of gravity, but it CAN be proven.

You can NOT, however, prove the existence of God.

I didn't say that I could. You have incorrectly and illogically interpreted my simile.
I did NOT say that "Religion is to God as science is to gravity". I said that "Religion is to BELIEF in God, as science is to BELIEF in Gravity".
The point being that BELIEF in either ( God / gravity ) does not require a knowledge of, or adherence to, its wrappings ( religion / science ).
And I CAN prove that BELIEF in God actually exists. To wit:
I believe in God. A factual statement.
You believe in God ( see your statement, above ). Unless you are lying, that, too, is a factual statement.
So, I have just proven that BELIEF in God actually exists.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/08/2008 09:55:24 AM · #584

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by RonB:
Religion is to belief in God as science is to belief in Gravity.

When you say things like this, you seriously undermine your credibility.

You don't have to be shown the existence of gravity, but it CAN be proven.

You can NOT, however, prove the existence of God.

I didn't say that I could. You have incorrectly and illogically interpreted my simile.
I did NOT say that "Religion is to God as science is to gravity". I said that "Religion is to BELIEF in God, as science is to BELIEF in Gravity".
The point being that BELIEF in either ( God / gravity ) does not require a knowledge of, or adherence to, its wrappings ( religion / science ).
And I CAN prove that BELIEF in God actually exists. To wit:
I believe in God. A factual statement.
You believe in God ( see your statement, above ). Unless you are lying, that, too, is a factual statement.
So, I have just proven that BELIEF in God actually exists.

My kids believe in Santa Claus.

BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.

That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.

The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot.

God cannot necessarily be disproven either, but, then again, neither can the Celestial Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, Osiris or any other deity of your choosing.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 10:03:16.

08/08/2008 10:59:29 AM · #585

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how?

08/08/2008 11:02:26 AM · #586

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
So by grouping time into the same categlry with length, width, temperature, (etc.) do you really mean to imply that length is eternal? width is eternal? temperature is eternal? etc.?

Dude. It's a measurement, not a thing. You could never have a bottle of time or width or smooth or 3. It's just a way to describe something. If there are 3 galaxies, you can say there are 3 galaxies, but before there were any galaxies, you can't say the number 3 itself didn't exist- it never did and still doesn't (you could still say there WEREN'T 3 galaxies). Same goes for time. If you have no events to measure, then you simply have nothing to describe in terms of elapsed time. Humans tend to think of time relative to the beginning of our universe (the context you're using here), but time itself is a descriptive term that has no beginning. You can still refer to 6 years and 14 seconds "before" the beginning of our universe.

EPIPHANY: God is pretty much in the same boat IMO: not a thing that exists, but a term used to describe something(s) (perceived forces, spirits, reasons for events). Things that exist are measurable and can be described in terms of mass, dimension and time (even if we lack the technology to do so). God is necessarily defined as UNknowable, not an physical thing but a philosophical one: a concept always described in terms of what we believe... about as subjective as you can get. You could probably put emotion into the same category. You'll never have a bottle of love, but we can measure increased heart rates, perspiration, etc. and subjectively agree to describe a particular group of conditions as love. Same deal with spirits: we perceive ourselves as a separate "entity" peering out through the window of our senses and describe that perception as a "spirit,"even though scientifically our perceptions are nothing more than how our brains interpret the electrochemical signals picked up by our sensor organs. We think, therefore we are... and if we believe God exists, then He does... and we cannot argue away the description any more that we could deny the existence of time or love. The only real difference is that how much we collectively agree on what we're describing. Time is simple: we set defined standards relative to something (currently the frequency of Cesium). Love is a much less standardized description, so what you consider love, others will call lust, a crush, affection, etc. God is the least standardized of the bunch, and the description is about as varied as individuals. To whatever extent, you may agree with a particular description, you might associate with or reject others who believe the same.

Note however that descriptions don't have to apply to existing things: spirits, luck, etc., yet belief in them can have significant consequences. I just heard on the radio that many Chinese women have scheduled c-sections for today (8/8/08) because 8 is a lucky number in China (nevermind the gestational development of the babies). Poor kids. Likewise, people have attributed lightning, tornadoes and other phenomena to God, and as we have come to understand the real reasons, those traditional beliefs are modified or reinterpreted to varying degrees. If lightning strikes down a dictator, it's God's punishment, but if a tornado strikes a church, it's God calling his children home. The difference is how you describe it.

Shannon, I have to rank this post as among the most cogent you have ever posted.
I would, however, like to deal with some of your statements.
First, your contention that time is [ just ] a measurement. We know that physical things exist and that their position is NOT just defined by WHERE ( space ), but by WHEN ( time ), as well - that is, physical object exist at a point in space-TIME, not just in space. So TIME is a point on an infinite scale. However, you cannot MEASURE the distance time-wise from a beginning point, since there is none - ergo, Time is not JUST a measurement.
Secondly, I would disagree that Time, Love, etc. do not "exist". Certainly, I agree that they do not exist in the physical sense, but they do exist in the sense that they "persist" or "occur" ( some of many meanings for the word 'exist' ).
That being said, you are right in that we cannot have a bottle of time - but then, we cannot have a bottle of God, which is what many who post here are requiring before they will acknowledge that He "exists". They accept Time and 3 and smooth without there being a bottle full of them, but refuse to accept God, just because we who believe cannot put Him in a bottle.
Nevertheless, I think that you have encapsulated the issue of belief in God very well. It is an unreasonable belief to those who do not believe, but a perfectly reasonable belief to those who do.

08/08/2008 11:10:40 AM · #587

"WHERE" is a measurement, too, and I suppose you could even think of space itself as non-existent since it's literally the empty nothingness between matter. Perhaps space is infinite BECAUSE it doesn't exist! Ponder that one. Nobody assumes time and 3 and smooth are coherent things with a list of specific demands on how we must live our lives under threat of damnation. That's where the conflict with God occurs.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/08/2008 11:30:19 AM · #588

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My kids believe in Santa Claus.

BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.

That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.

The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot.

When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how?

Well for a start, gravity is why the space shuttle is going around the earth. The approx 7900 meters per second it travels at is a good indication that gravity is still acting up on it...

So as an easy example of how they could demonstrate gravity still exists, they could look out the window?

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/08/2008 11:35:04 AM · #589

Originally posted by RonB:

You don't seem to understand what gravity is. It's a natural phenomenon occuring between objects of mass - all objects. There's gravity between you and your teapot, as well as between you and the planet and planets amongst themselves. The magnitude of the force changes, but the basic effect is always the same. It can therefore also be measured on the space shuttle.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/08/2008 11:36:11 AM · #590

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read the book. I'm serious.

You must first watch the video. And read Dawkins, as I've asked of you before. :-P I shouldn't expect others to read proponents of my position if I don't have the same expectation of myself.

I watched that Dawkins video you posted a while back. Wasn't that over an hour? I can't watch this video as the only access to the internet I have for this week and next is at work. I can't just kick back for 109 minutes to watch the dude.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

08/08/2008 11:56:12 AM · #591

Additional videos for those interested:

Hitchens and McGrath - Religious Belief in the Modern World - Debate style. Both sides make interesting points.

For some real fun:
Al Sharpton Vs. Christopher Hitchens - A Debate: God is not Great - Sharpton comes off much better than usual and its really interesting to hear the points and counterpoints.

changed URL to better acting site.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 11:58:37.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/08/2008 11:56:46 AM · #592

Originally posted by RonB:

I could just as easily dismiss Love, Hate, Pity, etc. as having no measurable intervention in the modern world.

...God hasn't changed one bit. He still intervenes in the lives of believers ( and non-believers, as well ). It's just that He chooses to do so in ways that are not scientifically measurable - probably to confound those who demand "proof" before they will believe.

We are talking at odds.

I am saying that God used to intervene directly in the world through physical manifestation according to the bible, but no longer appears to do so (you appear to agree). If God still answered prayers in the way that he is reported to have done in eras past (eg curing people, keeping them safe, or appearing as a speaking burning bush) then it would be easily measurable and the question would be answered. But he does not. You appear to agree with me on this but for different reasons â�� your reason â��he does not do so in order to confound unbelieversâ�� â�� my reason â��he does not appear to do so because people are less easily fooled than they used to beâ��.

Originally posted by RonB:

And impossible to believe, if you require scientific proof before you'll believe.

This can be reversed. You believe in a god who acts in a way that should be measurable - but those measurable activities have never been successfully measured as happening. Any continued belief in, say, prayer for physical intervention is quite perverse.

Originally posted by RonB:

Religion is to belief in God as science is to belief in Gravity. [etc]

We are speaking at odds again. My point is that there is a huge incentive for man to create gods and religion for very human reasons. So much so that people are still constantly coming up with new gods and religions, all of which appear to be totally unfounded. I have no reason to think that these same incentives did not exist 2k years ago, but in more credulous times with more â��mysteriesâ�� for religion to answer.

Rather than trying to disprove that any one in a million religions is right, I am saying that it is a far more compelling an explanation that religions are the creation of man for very human reasons, not divinely inspired.

Originally posted by RonB:

I would hope that you'd agree that scientists have often played as strong a part in politics as religion â�¦ And scientists are not constrained by an equivalent to the so-called "separation of church and state" that constrains religion.

I cannot get my head around any real equivalencies here. I would note that the separation of powers is a 19th century CE concept of limited application and the modern scientific method is an 18th century CE concept vs far older religions.

People do not carry out research using the scientific method in order to gain sly political advantage - discovering objective fact is useful for setting agendas, but not so useful to justify pre-conceived ill-beliefs.

People do abuse the scientific method and misrepresent results of "science" for sly political reasons. There are lots of examples of that - the climate debate is full of people doing exactly that (but let's not start that here).

None of that explains away my central concept that religion has historically been used and propagated for impure political purposes. The fact that some science is misrepresented for political gain is equally despicable - and equally comprehensible as happening for very human reasons.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

08/08/2008 12:21:02 PM · #593

Originally posted by scalvert:

While SOME Christians continue to believe that they must adhere to a list of specific demands on how they must live their lives under threat of damnation - probably due to the influence of anti-Christians who propagate false doctrine - Scripture does not support that belief - it says ( in John 6:28-29 ):

"Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.""

There is no requirement to adhere to a list of specific demands - only to believe.

Elsewhere, scripture says ( in Romans 10:9-10 ):

" if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

Scripture does NOT include "...and adhere to a list of specific demands..." as an additional requirement.

milo655321

Nikon D70

08/08/2008 12:22:53 PM · #594

Originally posted by RonB:

Orbital Mechanics

08/08/2008 12:28:34 PM · #595

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My kids believe in Santa Claus.

BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.

That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.

The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot.

When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how?

Well for a start, gravity is why the space shuttle is going around the earth. The approx 7900 meters per second it travels at is a good indication that gravity is still acting up on it...

Easy for you to say from your earthly perspective, but you have not been reared on the space shuttle. If you had been, you would not know that gravity existed by direct measurement.

And, because you have been reared not knowing God, you do not believe He exists.

Originally posted by Gordon:

So as an easy example of how they could demonstrate gravity still exists, they could look out the window?

If observation is an acceptable scientific proof, then ghosts exist, UFO's exist, leprechauns exist, etc., because they have all been observed.
Observation is not demonstration.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/08/2008 12:31:52 PM · #596

Originally posted by RonB:

Scripture does NOT include "...and adhere to a list of specific demands..." as an additional requirement.

Christians do not limit their "responsibilities" to mere belief, and the lines you quote would exclude all people born before Jesus and anyone ignorant of the stories of the Bible. It's a circular argument: the Bible says you must do something that is only known from the Bible.

Louis

Nikon D800

08/08/2008 12:37:12 PM · #597

Originally posted by RonB:

And, because you have been reared not knowing God, you do not believe He exists.

What an astonishing thing to say.

08/08/2008 12:38:42 PM · #598

Originally posted by milo655321:

Let me restate the questions, because apparently you did not understand them.

Can it ( gravity ) be shown to exist by someone on the space shuttle?
If so, how can it ( gravity ) be shown to exist by someone on the space shuttle?

Point: Just because you cannot measure it, does not mean that it does not exist.

08/08/2008 12:40:35 PM · #599

Originally posted by RonB:

Easy for you to say from your earthly perspective, but you have not been reared on the space shuttle. If you had been, you would not know that gravity existed by direct measurement.

Sure you would. If the space shuttle were not bound by gravity, it would shoot straight off into space rather than follow an elliptical orbit. You don't perceive that you weigh less on a plane at 60,000 feet than you do on a plane at 1,000 feet, or that you weigh different amounts at the North Pole and the equator, but that doesn't mean both can't be calculated or measured directly.

Sam94720