|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/26/2009 04:22:42 PM · #3351 |
I have a question......since for the most part, the objections against gays are religion based, what do other religions have to say?
Is it a problem with Muslims? Jews? Buddhists? Hindus?
It seems that atheists, agnostics, free thinking non-denominationals, some splintered-off Christians, and general people who don't follow the Bible don't seem to have any issue with gays......and in many cases, are their most strident advocates. I know the people in the Social Action Committee in my church who are hetero are more active and outspoken about equal rights than our gay congregants. Most of our gay congregants are perfectly content to just be welcome and live a quiet existence in our church body.
I'd also be curious as to how many folks are out there who believe in God either don't think that being gay is a sin, or are of the position that it's not their place to judge therefore accept gays as human beings on their own merits as people they interact with in their lives.
It's funny.....the two guys who own the gallery & framing studio where I get all my work done are two of the nicest, most decent and caring people I know.....well, maybe not Jim, he's EXACTLY like me, so we occasionally carp at each other about stupid stuff with no good reason 'cause we're both identically moody....but I honestly do not understand how their relationship affects me, my wife's and my relationship, or anyone else's for that matter, making it completely incomprehensible to me why they aren't permitted by law to marry. They've been together for 23 years, and are one of the most stable couples I know. I didn't know that the two of them were a gay couple, for some time after I had met them; our relationship was one of business. What I fail to comprehend is that how would that make anything different?
I respect and admire both of them, and they have grown to be very valuable friends over the last couple of years. For the life of me, I cannot understand why they would be considered any different since they have to eat, sleep, do laundry, go to work, pay their taxes, and all the rest of what goes along with being a human.
If all of a sudden, half the homes in the area had to be flattened, and we were told to find friends and double up, these guys would be very high up on the list of people we'd prefer to have as housemates.
Am I not supposed to base my relationship with these two men on the way that they have treated me, the way that we have so much in common, that we find many of the same things interesting and fun? What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
12/26/2009 07:54:22 PM · #3352 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Each and every one of us, if placed on the pedestal and in the crosshairs of the rest, would quickly feel foolish for putting stock in their beliefs. |
This was posted shortly after the "trinity" thing, so I'll assume it's at least partially directed here. Speaking for myself, the result is not to make anyone feel foolish. Far from it. When someone posts something like, "You dismiss the trinity because you don't understand it," that simply begs for rebuttal. Begs for an elucidation. A definition would do. The trinity is one of those slices of doctrine that is even admitted to be convoluted and impenetrable, so when someone makes an accusation like that in a forum that at least vaguely resembles an argument, they are obligated to defend their remarks with something better than "you don't understand". People can be believe anything they like. I really don't care. It's not necessarily the beliefs that make the fool. But ensnaring others in beliefs that are universally poorly understood even by so-called scholars is just bad form, and should never get a free pass. |
|
|
|
12/26/2009 08:26:34 PM · #3353 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Each and every one of us, if placed on the pedestal and in the crosshairs of the rest, would quickly feel foolish for putting stock in their beliefs. |
This was posted shortly after the "trinity" thing, so I'll assume it's at least partially directed here. Speaking for myself, the result is not to make anyone feel foolish. Far from it. When someone posts something like, "You dismiss the trinity because you don't understand it," that simply begs for rebuttal. Begs for an elucidation. A definition would do. The trinity is one of those slices of doctrine that is even admitted to be convoluted and impenetrable, so when someone makes an accusation like that in a forum that at least vaguely resembles an argument, they are obligated to defend their remarks with something better than "you don't understand". People can be believe anything they like. I really don't care. It's not necessarily the beliefs that make the fool. But ensnaring others in beliefs that are universally poorly understood even by so-called scholars is just bad form, and should never get a free pass. |
I don't disagree, Louis. I guess my point is all our worldviews are riddled with holes (like swiss cheese) and what tends to happen on this thread is the theist winds up posting something while everybody else takes turn ripping it down. If you, or some other materialist/atheist, were to wander into a forum of educated theists and start talking, I'd think they could make you feel foolish as well. Ya, the Trinity is some crazy stuff. But we're not alone. ;)
Look at it this way. The materialist/atheist believes in an eternal universe even though all evidence points to a beginning. They either believe we have won the universal lottery with the "fine-tuning" of our Universe (to support life) or believe in an infinite number of alternate universes (of which we have zero evidence). They believe in the abiotic arising of life in a geologic eyeblink even though we are at a complete loss to describe how it happened (beyond some very superficial, speculative generalities). The majority believe in free will (although this goes against the fatalism inherent in materialism). They believe that "right" and "wrong" mean something only when they use the term. Anybody else is likely to be invoking a obsolete, barbarous system that should be thrown on the rubbish heap.
Give me four or five theists skilled in debate, and I think the above paragraph would be enough to make an atheist cry to his mama. ;)
But that has nothing to do with gay marriage...
Message edited by author 2009-12-26 20:28:25. |
|
|
|
12/26/2009 08:43:22 PM · #3354 |
Oh, I've given up bitching about being off-topic long ago.
Without heading down the same track as everyone has a couple of dozen times before, let me just say that some of those things you accuse atheists of "believing" aren't "beliefs" -- they're "theories". If you're saying that I, for example, put more stock in something a scientist with nothing but a potentially falsifiable theory says over the arcane writings of an anonymous bronze-age mystic, I stand guilty as charged.
And though I don't doubt there are skilled theist debaters, I think I, for one, would be able to keep the sobbing in check. Arguing skills notwithstanding, all theists still have to contend with all those glorious holes in the story, and those lapses of reason in order to make them fit reality, and the reliance on faith to tie it all together. |
|
|
|
12/26/2009 09:32:04 PM · #3355 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Oh, I've given up bitching about being off-topic long ago.
Without heading down the same track as everyone has a couple of dozen times before, let me just say that some of those things you accuse atheists of "believing" aren't "beliefs" -- they're "theories". If you're saying that I, for example, put more stock in something a scientist with nothing but a potentially falsifiable theory says over the arcane writings of an anonymous bronze-age mystic, I stand guilty as charged.
And though I don't doubt there are skilled theist debaters, I think I, for one, would be able to keep the sobbing in check. Arguing skills notwithstanding, all theists still have to contend with all those glorious holes in the story, and those lapses of reason in order to make them fit reality, and the reliance on faith to tie it all together. |
Well, I understand what you are saying, but effectively "theory" and "belief" are the same thing when a worldview is considered. What ideas are you using to interpret the world around you? It wouldn't make it any less absurd for you if I suddenly said all my beliefs concerning religion are actually philosophical theorems.
Your second statement reveals a tried-and-true atheist debate tactic. Redirection. I've seen over and over (as above), whenever I, or someone else, gets uncomfortably close to revealing some irrational hole in an atheist's system, they quickly fall back on, "well, that's NOTHING compared to the crazy stuff YOU believe". If you were forbidden from using this tactic and were forced to purely defend your own, uh, theories on life, you'd choke just like the rest of us. And I'm not saying that because I don't think you are rational and a good debator (you are clearly both of those), but I know the house of cards our worldviews are built upon. I've always been up front about them, but I've rarely come across an atheist who is willing to observe the frailty of the foundations of their own views (actually that probably holds for most theists as well). |
|
|
|
12/26/2009 10:15:06 PM · #3356 |
So in summary both atheists and theists are full of cow manure. Now if we can only agree to stop legislating it...
|
|
|
|
12/26/2009 10:35:47 PM · #3357 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So in summary both atheists and theists are full of cow manure. Now if we can only agree to stop legislating it... |
Don't get me started about you agnostics... |
|
|
|
12/26/2009 10:43:16 PM · #3358 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look at it this way. The materialist/atheist believes in an eternal universe even though all evidence points to a beginning. They either believe we have won the universal lottery with the "fine-tuning" of our Universe (to support life) or believe in an infinite number of alternate universes (of which we have zero evidence). They believe in the abiotic arising of life in a geologic eyeblink even though we are at a complete loss to describe how it happened (beyond some very superficial, speculative generalities). The majority believe in free will (although this goes against the fatalism inherent in materialism). They believe that "right" and "wrong" mean something only when they use the term. Anybody else is likely to be invoking a obsolete, barbarous system that should be thrown on the rubbish heap. |
I'm trying to figure out where you came up with these.
Who says a materialist believes in an eternal universe?
I know of no atheist that believes in 'fine tuning' for life; the ones I have talked to fully believe it was chance that resulted in human life - fine tuning requires a fine tuner.
I also do not comprehend how you got from materialism to fatalism in one jump or how the atheist definition of right and wrong varies from your own.
As Scalvert pointed out to you with regard to the evolution of species, as far as I know, only the religious believe anything happens in an eyeblink.
Just some thoughts...
|
|
|
|
12/26/2009 10:48:33 PM · #3359 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always been up front about them, but I've rarely come across an atheist who is willing to observe the frailty of the foundations of their own views (actually that probably holds for most theists as well). |
I think you're pretty much wrong there. Most of the realists, if you will, pretty much acknowledge that their beliefs are held based on theories, and fully cognizant of the changes and different directions that the theories have taken, not to mention, come and gone.....the earth is flat, etc. But in the face of concrete evidence, a reasonable person has to doubt much of what is stated to be fact, not to mention that with no evidence whatever to support something, the beliefe has to be based on faith, yet you cannot state that faith is arrived at based on any form of reason whatsoever.
After all, most of what you are talking about discounting are even called theory.....big bang, string, evolution.....proponents of these for the most part hold them as theories. There is evidence to support some of these theories in various forms, and older theories have been shown to be disproven, and ideas changed because of it. Who would have ever thought man could fly?
Christians on the other hand say that their answers are ironclad and don't even want to consider the possibility that their faith and beliefs can be called into question.
That's a real problem when it comes to having intelligent conversation. If you will not consider the possibility that you could be wrong, the discussion is over before it starts. And by your faith and belief system, you cannot consider that possibility, can you?
|
|
|
|
12/26/2009 11:54:30 PM · #3360 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look at it this way. The materialist/atheist believes in an eternal universe even though all evidence points to a beginning. They either believe we have won the universal lottery with the "fine-tuning" of our Universe (to support life) or believe in an infinite number of alternate universes (of which we have zero evidence). They believe in the abiotic arising of life in a geologic eyeblink even though we are at a complete loss to describe how it happened (beyond some very superficial, speculative generalities). The majority believe in free will (although this goes against the fatalism inherent in materialism). They believe that "right" and "wrong" mean something only when they use the term. Anybody else is likely to be invoking a obsolete, barbarous system that should be thrown on the rubbish heap. |
I'm trying to figure out where you came up with these.
Who says a materialist believes in an eternal universe?
I know of no atheist that believes in 'fine tuning' for life; the ones I have talked to fully believe it was chance that resulted in human life - fine tuning requires a fine tuner.
I also do not comprehend how you got from materialism to fatalism in one jump or how the atheist definition of right and wrong varies from your own.
As Scalvert pointed out to you with regard to the evolution of species, as far as I know, only the religious believe anything happens in an eyeblink.
Just some thoughts... |
The materialist is faced with the question, "If the universe had a beginning, what caused it?" and although the famous reply is "What caused God?" the difference between the two is the first (the universe we know) has evidence to point to a beginning. With God, of course, we have no evidence one way or the other. So the Materialist is stuck either denying the evidence that points to an original moment in our Universe, or they are stuck admitting a cause (be it like God or like a multiverse) which they have no evidence for (something a materialist hates to do).
I'll have to get back to you with a link on fatalism. As far as right or wrong, if I'm no different than the atheist, you need to tell them that because they always seem to be complaining about my version (a la this thread).
A geologic eyeblink is about 100 million years, IIRC. I believe that's about the time we figure is between the late bombardment and the first evidence we see for life. I can get back with more on that. Anyway, it was a very short period of time relatively speaking. As soon as life could appear, it did. Highly peculiar as it implies either a very simple process (which we can't figure out) or incredible luck (once again).
You can read about the fine tuned universe. Note that it is not a matter of believing the universe is fine-tuned, but how to arrive at such a state.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 12:16:48 AM · #3361 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I understand what you are saying, but effectively "theory" and "belief" are the same thing when a worldview is considered. |
That's a surprising thing to say. Accepting theorizing about the origins of life in a way that uses empirical data so that a hypothesis can be tested and refined and making up allegories about it out of thin air are identical?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What ideas are you using to interpret the world around you? It wouldn't make it any less absurd for you if I suddenly said all my beliefs concerning religion are actually philosophical theorems. |
I'll admit to not understanding this.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your second statement reveals a tried-and-true atheist debate tactic. Redirection. I've seen over and over (as above), whenever I, or someone else, gets uncomfortably close to revealing some irrational hole in an atheist's system, they quickly fall back on, "well, that's NOTHING compared to the crazy stuff YOU believe". |
I think you and I see your points above differently. I find no irrational hole -- there is no "ah-ha" moment in what you've said. I didn't elaborate because we've really been down this whole cosmology thing so many times that we're all starting to look kind of silly (though I'm happy to have the same argument; I just don't want to bore anyone). Your atheist quote ("...that's NOTHING...") is uttered out of the assumption that the atheist is knowingly spouting falsehoods or irrationalities, when he is not. There's no redirection, no tactic. Honestly: acceptance of a scientific, theory-based explanation of the origin of the universe, however incomplete that explanation is so long as it's true theory based (most likely on mathematical) science and that is testable and falsifiable is much better than acceptance of biblical stories to explain the origin of the universe. If you disagree with that, we are having a different argument. I'm happy to go there if need be.
About world views: the only two at play here are the scientific world view and the faith-based world view, the representatives for which are obvious. The scientific world view is not based on a house of cards, but I can't think how the faith-based one could otherwise be described. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 12:34:37 AM · #3362 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess my point is all our worldviews are riddled with holes (like swiss cheese) and what tends to happen on this thread is the theist winds up posting something while everybody else takes turn ripping it down. If you, or some other materialist/atheist, were to wander into a forum of educated theists and start talking, I'd think they could make you feel foolish as well. |
I doubt it. With anything I believe, I can either point to strong, verifiable evidence or freely acknowledge that I don't know. I cannot made to feel foolish for relying on facts and accept that the knowledge may be incomplete or I can be wrong.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The materialist is faced with the question, "If the universe had a beginning, what caused it?" and although the famous reply is "What caused God?" the difference between the two is the first (the universe we know) has evidence to point to a beginning. |
My answer would be that we don't know. There are several possible explanations, and it may be one of those or something completely different. Therein lies the difference. I don't claim to know the answer. Theists do, and it's extremely easy to point out the flaw in that [lack of] reasoning: God couldn't possibly have created everything because if nothing existed, he wouldn't be around to do the creating, and if he did, then he obviously didn't create everything. The argument that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an even MORE complex entity is one of the most absurd, self-contradicting proposals ever put forth by man.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 00:36:43. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 01:42:47 AM · #3363 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I understand what you are saying, but effectively "theory" and "belief" are the same thing when a worldview is considered. |
That's a surprising thing to say. Accepting theorizing about the origins of life in a way that uses empirical data so that a hypothesis can be tested and refined and making up allegories about it out of thin air are identical?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What ideas are you using to interpret the world around you? It wouldn't make it any less absurd for you if I suddenly said all my beliefs concerning religion are actually philosophical theorems. |
I'll admit to not understanding this.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your second statement reveals a tried-and-true atheist debate tactic. Redirection. I've seen over and over (as above), whenever I, or someone else, gets uncomfortably close to revealing some irrational hole in an atheist's system, they quickly fall back on, "well, that's NOTHING compared to the crazy stuff YOU believe". |
I think you and I see your points above differently. I find no irrational hole -- there is no "ah-ha" moment in what you've said. I didn't elaborate because we've really been down this whole cosmology thing so many times that we're all starting to look kind of silly (though I'm happy to have the same argument; I just don't want to bore anyone). Your atheist quote ("...that's NOTHING...") is uttered out of the assumption that the atheist is knowingly spouting falsehoods or irrationalities, when he is not. There's no redirection, no tactic. Honestly: acceptance of a scientific, theory-based explanation of the origin of the universe, however incomplete that explanation is so long as it's true theory based (most likely on mathematical) science and that is testable and falsifiable is much better than acceptance of biblical stories to explain the origin of the universe. If you disagree with that, we are having a different argument. I'm happy to go there if need be.
About world views: the only two at play here are the scientific world view and the faith-based world view, the representatives for which are obvious. The scientific world view is not based on a house of cards, but I can't think how the faith-based one could otherwise be described. |
I still never know what to do with nested replies. I'll just reply below:
I see I'm not really getting through about my first point (Shannon is stumbling on the same thing) so I'll try again. Let's take abiogenesis. The true statement is: Life arose and exists. That's is all we know for sure. The theist says, "The process was directed by an intelligent agent (ie. God)." The atheist says, "The process occurred without the direction of an intelligent agent (ie. through "natural" processes)." To my way of thinking, both these statements are pretty foundational to our worldviews. So foundational that it's pretty scary that both are without any support. In other words, in both you and myself, it is the worldview that dictates the answer and not vice versa. Now I know it feels better to you to stick with "natural" processes, but there is no a priori reason to assume this to be the case.
My second statement that you didn't understand plays off this. While you claim your beliefs are "theories" and are ostensibly open to refining, I contend that they are axioms of your worldview. Like I said, the choices you make about these basic questions dictates your worldview and not the other way around. The bit about "theorems" was just trying to show you that if I somehow claimed that my beliefs were merely "philosophical theorems" (ostensibly open to refining through philosophical argument) I still don't think you would hold them on equal ground with your own. (I used the word "theorem" instead of "theory" to avoid confusion with "scientific theory" when arguing about God.)
I'm sure that makes it all clear now? :)
The reason I hold that if you, or someone else, were forced to defend your worldview on its own merits, you would ultimately fail, is because of these large gaps in our knowledge. We don't know everything, and at the risk of someone quickly yelling "God-of-the-gaps!" these gaps are still important to our worldviews. They affect morality and ethics. They affect our outlook (eg. free will). In essence, they matter. Nobody has the answers to these gaps (or they wouldn't be gaps), and so nobody's worldview is unassailable.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 01:44:35. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 02:51:12 AM · #3364 |
No idea what any of you are trying to say (I really did try to read it but it all just turned to a grayish soup with random letters) but thought I'd stop by and say I happened across a bit about George Takei yesterday, and then read a bit more about his wedding during the window of opportunity in California. He and his husband had been together for 21 years at the time they were able to marry. It was very sweet. They seem very happy they were able to legalize their life together.
I now return you to the gray soupy letter bit. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 03:36:54 AM · #3365 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason I hold that if you, or someone else, were forced to defend your worldview on its own merits, you would ultimately fail, is because of these large gaps in our knowledge. We don't know everything, and at the risk of someone quickly yelling "God-of-the-gaps!" these gaps are still important to our worldviews. They affect morality and ethics. They affect our outlook (eg. free will). In essence, they matter. Nobody has the answers to these gaps (or they wouldn't be gaps), and so nobody's worldview is unassailable. |
Was Kumbaya playing in the background when you wrote this? Are you trying to get atheists and theists to come together? Should I be scared?
Seriously, how are these gaps important to non-theists? If it helps I'd be willing to offer my own worldview on whatever you like and you can explain to me how this theory of yours applies. Deal? |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 07:57:15 AM · #3366 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
No idea what any of you are trying to say (I really did try to read it but it all just turned to a grayish soup with random letters) but thought I'd stop by and say I happened across a bit about George Takei yesterday, and then read a bit more about his wedding during the window of opportunity in California. He and his husband had been together for 21 years at the time they were able to marry. It was very sweet. They seem very happy they were able to legalize their life together. |
That'd be that whole "Live & let Live" and "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing that the Christian moralists have problems with.....
As an American, it bothers me that the same country thet was founded on the premises of freedom for, and from, religion, has this vociferous sect that would dictate how we live.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 07:57:37.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:13:42 AM · #3367 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
... I happened across a bit about George Takei yesterday, and then read a bit more about his wedding during the window of opportunity in California. He and his husband had been together for 21 years at the time they were able to marry. It was very sweet. They seem very happy they were able to legalize their life together. |
George was the guest on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me game show yesterday (12/26) -- very funny, check it out! |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:16:45 AM · #3368 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The materialist is faced with the question, "If the universe had a beginning, what caused it?" and although the famous reply is "What caused God?" the difference between the two is the first (the universe we know) has evidence to point to a beginning. With God, of course, we have no evidence one way or the other. So the Materialist is stuck either denying the evidence that points to an original moment in our Universe, or they are stuck admitting a cause (be it like God or like a multiverse) which they have no evidence for (something a materialist hates to do).
I'll have to get back to you with a link on fatalism. As far as right or wrong, if I'm no different than the atheist, you need to tell them that because they always seem to be complaining about my version (a la this thread).
A geologic eyeblink is about 100 million years, IIRC. I believe that's about the time we figure is between the late bombardment and the first evidence we see for life. I can get back with more on that. Anyway, it was a very short period of time relatively speaking. As soon as life could appear, it did. Highly peculiar as it implies either a very simple process (which we can't figure out) or incredible luck (once again).
You can read about the fine tuned universe. Note that it is not a matter of believing the universe is fine-tuned, but how to arrive at such a state. |
First, you err in your assumption that all atheists are materialists. Thatâs like saying all mammals are dogs. Atheism is the denial of the existence of a god or gods. It does not require materialism nor induce materialism.
Yes, it is believed that the big bang began the universe âas we know it.â That does not preclude its existence in some other form prior to that. Just because we cannot name it or describe it does not invalidate its existence. We have, in the last forty years, also discovered dark matter and dark energy. At the very least, as Shannon pointed out, the scientific atheist can state, âI donât know.â
I donât need a link on fatalism (you might find this interesting)but I will mention that, with a God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, I find it hard to believe that any theist would not be a fatalist.
Hmmm⦠you donât allow for life to form in a âgeologic eyeblinkâ of 100 million years but you do allow for it in seven days created by an uncreated creator?
As for âfine tuning,â the existence of life requires that the universe appear fine tuned, but it doesnât require it to be fine tuned. However, let us say, for the sake of argument, that the universe had a designer. It put everything in place required so that, some day, you and I could be discussing his design. The existence of this designer does not require that it be omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent. Nor does it require it to smite sinners, impregnate virgins, and have a bunch of humans âwriteâ his book and pray to it for salvation. If a designer of the universe exists, that does not mean heaven exists, sin exists, hell exists. All of those are human constructs. And if there was a designer of the universe, there is nothing requiring that there be only one â designer or universe â nor is there anything requiring it/their continued existence.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:20:00 AM · #3369 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's take abiogenesis. The true statement is: Life arose and exists. That's is all we know for sure. The theist says, "The process was directed by an intelligent agent (ie. God)." The atheist says, "The process occurred without the direction of an intelligent agent (ie. through "natural" processes)." To my way of thinking, both these statements are pretty foundational to our worldviews. So foundational that it's pretty scary that both are without any support. |
But there is support for abiogenesis through natural processes, unless you want to completely discount Miller-Urey and subsequent experimentation, while there is no scientific/verifiable evidence for Intelligent Design. They may both be "foundational" statements, but are not otherwise comparable. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:49:07 AM · #3370 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Melethia:
... I happened across a bit about George Takei yesterday, and then read a bit more about his wedding during the window of opportunity in California. He and his husband had been together for 21 years at the time they were able to marry. It was very sweet. They seem very happy they were able to legalize their life together. |
George was the guest on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me game show yesterday (12/26) -- very funny, check it out! |
Yep, that was the bit I was talking about. :-) |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 11:47:13 AM · #3371 |
dahkota
Exactly what was it that banged and where was it? About how big was it before it banged and was it the only one or were there more? If more, have any of them banged too? If there were no one to hear, was there any sound? If there was sound did it exist outside the bang area where supposedly nothing existed. Do you think, if there were other bangings happening they heard each other? Ever wonder who or what set them off?
Any one of us could go on and on speculating, but the truth is we don't know and while on earth, we will never know. That's where faith comes in. To me it is unimaginable with all the intricacies of life and how the smallest of things work together so perfectly so that a heart will beat, an ear can hear, etc,etc that life just happened. It just don't add up. So, I have faith there is a Creator. Where HE came from I have no idea but I believe one day I will find out and look forward to that day.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 12:31:47 PM · #3372 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now I know it feels better to you to stick with "natural" processes, but there is no a priori reason to assume this to be the case. |
False. There's a very good reason: EVERYTHING we know and understand to date has had natural origins and follow natural processes. We know of absolutely nothing shown to have supernatural origins or processes. It is immensely more probable to conclude that what we don't know will continue to follow the same perfect record of natural causes than to assume all human knowledge is a sham subject to the whims of fairytale magic.
Originally posted by David Ey:
the truth is we don't know and while on earth, we will never know. |
You claim we don't know and then assume you do in the same sentence. LOL- you can't even successfully debate yourself! |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 01:00:06 PM · #3373 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The theist says, "The process was directed by an intelligent agent (ie. God)." The atheist says, "The process occurred without the direction of an intelligent agent (ie. through "natural" processes)." To my way of thinking, both these statements are pretty foundational to our worldviews. So foundational that it's pretty scary that both are without any support. |
Even given that theories of abiogenesis arise without experimentation (they do not, as GeneralE pointed out, or else they wouldn't really be theories), I'm afraid I'll have to resort to what you've considered a "tactic": that theorizing is preferable to making stuff up. We're talking about the choice between speculating on the basis of empirical evidence obtained within the last 100 years versus relying on 4,000 year old manuscripts that read like myth cycles. That are myth cycles, inasmuch as the creation stories of the Greeks or the North American Indians are.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now I know it feels better to you to stick with "natural" processes, but there is no a priori reason to assume this to be the case. |
Yes there is. Because natural processes described by scientific theorizing are preferable to processes described by bronze-age mythologists who knew nothing about the natural world around them unless it was tangible and immediate. (My contention is that you get your religion from these texts, and so they are as accountable for your world view as anything else, and thus, fair game.)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody has the answers to these gaps (or they wouldn't be gaps), and so nobody's worldview is unassailable. |
I think you are muddying the waters somewhat with your insistence on using the word "worldview" for everything (I much prefer the more pretentious "Weltanschauung", which you can find in many-a-pompous text). But the point is, the rejection of God as an explanation for the beginnings of life and the acceptance that natural processes were responsible and that a sound theory could be eventually formulated to explain them indicates that an atheist so described admits and takes pleasure in the fact that his "world view" if you like is not unassailable. That's the very definition of theorizing. I'm wrong about it? Cool, bring on the data to show how it should be changed. Let's learn as much as we can, without stopping at "God did it" and being happy with that, with all it's unanswerable questions and unassailable propositions.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 13:01:37. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 01:45:30 PM · #3374 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
dahkota
I have faith there is a Creator. Where HE came from I have no idea but I believe one day I will find out and look forward to that day. |
You might be interested in this quote... Then again, maybe not:
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." â Friedrich Nietzsche.
Ray
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 03:09:40 PM · #3375 |
scalvert, you do not know how to read and understand plain English....maybe I left out a comma. ,
ray, you are correct. I care not what this Nutski guy thinks. btw, I never said faith proved anything....guess you can't read either. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 02:35:28 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 02:35:28 AM EDT.
|
