| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2009 03:45:18 PM · #3376 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
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. |
You are aware that we can hear the echo of the big bang and see light (ie pictures) of the universe relatively shortly after the big bang, and see the directions of stars as they move away from the big bang?
Pretty much all of the evidence points to a big bang. With each new leap in sensitivity we see more and more of the very early universe, and detect more and more of the echo. So we do have a huge amount of evidence that very strongly points to this event as the genesis of the universe - No faith required.
As to why it banged - who knows. But the idea it might have been one of the millions of gods that men have postulated (and most of them forgotten), that's a pretty far fetched theory.
Incidentally, some people are starting to theorise that we might be able to see past the point of the big bang by analysing the way it "banged". So I wouldn't say would never know - though it may take some time and we'll probably never have a complete solution.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 04:31:56 PM · #3377 |
Originally posted by Louis:
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.) |
So here's your big moment to give me the essay we've been talking about. Using your scientific theories, answer the following questions:
What are basic human rights?
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed?
Up until now I've been content to point out things you do not know within the scientific world (I'm playing on your turf, as it were). Now we can move to another realm and see how you do.
I hope everybody else doesn't think I'm ignoring them...except I am. :) I'm talking to Louis at the moment. Except I can't let Shannon's statement go because it's a tautology. He says we should assume a natural explanation for everything because everything we know that has a natural explanation has a natural explanation...except the things we don't know have a natural explanation. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 06:54:08 PM · #3378 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...we should assume a natural explanation for everything because everything we know that has a natural explanation has a natural explanation...except the things we don't know have a natural explanation. |
No, I would say including the things we don't yet know have a natural explanation. It makes infinitely more sense to me than assuming everything we don't know must be the result of mysticism and magic. The supernatural is a holdout of cavemen and con men that literally uses the absence of evidence (and/or blatant disregard thereof) to describe an ever-shrinking pool of remaining mysteries. Such questions have been shown to have natural causes countless times over the eons, while superstition has perfect a success rate of zero. Given all the failed religions of the world, the chances of any new version of these same recycled myths suddenly overturning that track record is, well, also zero.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 19:07:20. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 07:15:49 PM · #3379 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Using your scientific theories, answer the following questions:
What are basic human rights?
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed? |
Louis (and I) have said that any given process has a rational, natural explanation. Your questions simply aren't applicable (any more than using science or the bible to answer what the best dessert is). These are subjective questions, largely based on personal experience and societal values... and subject to change. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 07:27:56 PM · #3380 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
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. |
It's funny that you seem to be the only clear-thinking one here and the rest of us are all drooling morons.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 08:12:27 PM · #3381 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Using your scientific theories, answer the following questions:
What are basic human rights?
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed? |
Louis (and I) have said that any given process has a rational, natural explanation. Your questions simply aren't applicable (any more than using science or the bible to answer what the best dessert is). These are subjective questions, largely based on personal experience and societal values... and subject to change. |
I added the bold, but I'm guessing you just put yourself into a distinct minority of people with that statement.
I'll wait to see what Louis says since he's owed me this for a while. Earlier he told me any question worth asking could be answered through the scientific method. This is why I phrased the question like I did. I agree with you that Science has no ability to answer these questions (although that doesn't put you in an awesome position)...
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 20:14:50. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 08:40:27 PM · #3382 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with you that Science has no ability to answer these questions (although that doesn't put you in an awesome position)... |
It doesn't put me in any position. It's completely irrelevant... just like using science (or the Bible) to answer the following questions:
Who should be allowed to vote?
When should this right be granted?
Are there ever times this right should be removed?
Attempting to answer any of these with science or religion is a fool's errand. The answer will vary greatly depending upon the society and century, so there is no "correct" answer to explain. Scientific method and bronze-age standards are not applicable. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 08:41:23 PM · #3383 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
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. |
I understand what you are saying here with regard to theories of the beginning of life. I can believe in the big bang and you can believe in an intelligent designer and neither of us has any proof. However, my belief does not speculate further, giving power, motivation, and direction to the big bang, unlike your theory which gives all that and more to an intelligent designer. My theory may require faith for understanding the beginning of time (at this time) but your belief requires faith contrary to evidence for the duration of time. Do you understand the difference? |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 08:44:44 PM · #3384 |
| Hey dahkota. While I'm talking with Louis, you can read about determinism, it's what I actually meant rather than fatalism. Also, I do know there are non-atheist materialists (or was it the other way around)? I'm mainly speaking to the atheist/materialist contingent because it's what Louis (and Shannon) represent along with most others on the thread (excluding you, I realize). |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 08:49:13 PM · #3385 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Attempting to answer any of these with science or religion is a fool's errand. The answer will vary greatly depending upon the society and century, so there is no "correct" answer to explain. Scientific method and bronze-age standards are not applicable. |
For better or for worse, answers like this are probably why many people perceive atheists to be amoral. Not saying it's true, but it sure feeds the fire...
Some questions, however, seem more fundamental and important than others. Are you telling me your worldview has nothing to say about the basic question of human rights? All you have is your personal experience and society?
80% of the time the theists are pounded on these threads its over some scientific idea. But when it comes down to the stuff that really matters, you have nothing to say?
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 20:52:10. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 08:58:51 PM · #3386 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey dahkota. While I'm talking with Louis, you can read about determinism, it's what I actually meant rather than fatalism. Also, I do know there are non-atheist materialists (or was it the other way around)? I'm mainly speaking to the atheist/materialist contingent because it's what Louis (and Shannon) represent along with most others on the thread (excluding you, I realize). |
I am well versed in determinism; in fact, I think in your original statement you only used fatalism for shock value. But I went with it. But back to my original reply, how can a theist who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god that exists outside of time and space not be a fatalist or at least a determinist? Granted, these are two different forms of determinism...
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:08:22 PM · #3387 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey dahkota. While I'm talking with Louis, you can read about determinism, it's what I actually meant rather than fatalism. Also, I do know there are non-atheist materialists (or was it the other way around)? I'm mainly speaking to the atheist/materialist contingent because it's what Louis (and Shannon) represent along with most others on the thread (excluding you, I realize). |
I am well versed in determinism; in fact, I think in your original statement you only used fatalism for shock value. But I went with it. But back to my original reply, how can a theist who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god that exists outside of time and space not be a fatalist or at least a determinist? Granted, these are two different forms of determinism... |
Well, that's another conversation for another day and redirection like I told Louis (happens ALL THE TIME on this thread). I'm interested in the fact that most atheist/materialists believe in free will when determinism stands in their way.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 21:08:41. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:11:57 PM · #3388 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Attempting to answer any of these with science or religion is a fool's errand. The answer will vary greatly depending upon the society and century, so there is no "correct" answer to explain. Scientific method and bronze-age standards are not applicable. |
For better or for worse, answers like this are probably why many people perceive atheists to be amoral. |
For better or for worse, responses like that sound like complete, raving lunacy. They're a complete disconnect to any sort of rational thought. Whether or not science (or religion) can answer moral questions does not preclude other sources. It would be like asking you to use the Bible to explain football rankings, and then assuming you don't know anything about football if you can't offer an answer from that source. It does not compute. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:27:22 PM · #3389 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
80% of the time the theists are pounded on these threads its over some scientific idea. But when it comes down to the stuff that really matters, you have nothing to say? |
No, the idea is that some of us don't have to be afraid of retribution to be decent to one another and to have compassion.
That doesn't necessitate either a scientific answer or to be lumped into the creation fold.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:34:27 PM · #3390 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm interested in the fact that most atheist/materialists believe in free will when determinism stands in their way. |
Why is it that you bust on the scientifically oriented people for wanting explanations, yet when you play semantics and get answers you don't like, you decide you have to try to slot people into categories that don't necessarily fit?
Just because you have a pat answer for everything, "'Cause it's God's will." doesn't mean that there's a pat answer for everyting, nor does there have to be.
Facts are in a constant state of flux for the people who think and keep their eyes open and pay attention.
Facts are different today than they were a year ago, a decade ago, a century ago......we grow and learn, yet the followers of the Bible, the people with a rigid God in their lives struggle with trying to live an unachievable goal.
WHY???
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:35:08 PM · #3391 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Attempting to answer any of these with science or religion is a fool's errand. The answer will vary greatly depending upon the society and century, so there is no "correct" answer to explain. Scientific method and bronze-age standards are not applicable. |
For better or for worse, answers like this are probably why many people perceive atheists to be amoral. |
For better or for worse, responses like that sound like complete, raving lunacy. They're a complete disconnect to any sort of rational thought. Whether or not science (or religion) can answer moral questions does not preclude other sources. It would be like asking you to use the Bible to explain football rankings, and then assuming you don't know anything about football if you can't offer an answer from that source. It does not compute. |
Didn't I say I agreed with you? (remember, Louis was the one who said all questions worth asking could be answered through the Scientific Method.) But all I'm hearing you bring to the table is personal experience and society (and frankly I've heard you disagree with your own society before, so really you are left with personal experience). Is this the case?
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 21:35:20. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 09:45:41 PM · #3392 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis was the one who said all questions worth asking could be answered through the Scientific Method. |
Where did he say that?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But all I'm hearing you bring to the table is personal experience and society (and frankly I've heard you disagree with your own society before, so really you are left with personal experience). Is this the case? |
My views are my own and may not match the public majority, however they are still the product of my experiences and upbringing in this particular time and place. The same holds true for you and everybody else, whether they care to admit it or not. Had you been born in Iran or Northern India, you almost certainly wouldn't be Christian, and had you lived in 16th century South Carolina, you'd probably think women weren't capable of leadership positions and owning slaves was your God-given right. Believing otherwise is denial. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:06:33 PM · #3393 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, that's another conversation for another day and redirection like I told Louis (happens ALL THE TIME on this thread). |
You're pretty good at it yourself. But hey I get it. It's much easier to redirect and grill the atheists then to put your theories to the test.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:11:47 PM · #3394 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, that's another conversation for another day and redirection like I told Louis (happens ALL THE TIME on this thread). |
You're pretty good at it yourself. But hey I get it. It's much easier to redirect and grill the atheists then to put your theories to the test. |
Since 98% of the time it's Friesen posting some thought out answer and the atheists pounding him for it, I thought I'd try it the other way for a bit. It seems people are out of practice defending their own position. Really, all I learn from Rant is most people don't like MY position. I don't know much about THEIR position. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:13:33 PM · #3395 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis was the one who said all questions worth asking could be answered through the Scientific Method. |
Where did he say that?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But all I'm hearing you bring to the table is personal experience and society (and frankly I've heard you disagree with your own society before, so really you are left with personal experience). Is this the case? |
My views are my own and may not match the public majority, however they are still the product of my experiences and upbringing in this particular time and place. The same holds true for you and everybody else, whether they care to admit it or not. Had you been born in Iran or Northern India, you almost certainly wouldn't be Christian, and had you lived in 16th century South Carolina, you'd probably think women weren't capable of leadership positions and owning slaves was your God-given right. Believing otherwise is denial. |
Blah blah blah. So what I hear you saying (other than redirection) is you have nothing but personal experience to answer questions like the one about basic human rights. Is that the case? |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:15:04 PM · #3396 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, that's another conversation for another day and redirection like I told Louis (happens ALL THE TIME on this thread). I'm interested in the fact that most atheist/materialists believe in free will when determinism stands in their way. |
But I wasn't trying to redirect. I was pointing out to you that there is more than one type of determinism. Please tell me to which type you are referring, maybe explaining how you arrive at that conclusion, or at least a plausible argument for your determination. I cannot respond to a general statement; I require more detail if I am requested to respond in kind. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:18:17 PM · #3397 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis was the one who said all questions worth asking could be answered through the Scientific Method. |
Where did he say that?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But all I'm hearing you bring to the table is personal experience and society (and frankly I've heard you disagree with your own society before, so really you are left with personal experience). Is this the case? |
My views are my own and may not match the public majority, however they are still the product of my experiences and upbringing in this particular time and place. The same holds true for you and everybody else, whether they care to admit it or not. Had you been born in Iran or Northern India, you almost certainly wouldn't be Christian, and had you lived in 16th century South Carolina, you'd probably think women weren't capable of leadership positions and owning slaves was your God-given right. Believing otherwise is denial. |
Jason, why is it so hard for you to accept that the atheist doesn't believe in some mythical absolute truth like the theist? You keep goin in circles with this. Making comments like well that puts you in the minority is a pretty weak reply nevermind isn't backed up with any facts. It sounds like your strategy is whatever doesn't fit in your little box I'll just ignore. Well when you find that mythical atheist that fits in your square pegs let us all know. Well throw a party or something. :)
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:31:59 PM · #3398 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Jason, why is it so hard for you to accept that the atheist doesn't believe in some mythical absolute truth like the theist? |
Well, frankly Richard, they sure as hell argue like there is an absolute truth on threads like this. If all we have to determine right and wrong are our personal experiences and (maybe) society. What does a thread like this hope to accomplish? I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed (and my personal experience says that should go for everybody). You bring yours to the table that says gay marriage is fine. What then? Nobody here is arguing like they have nothing but their personal experience backing them up. They argue as if they are right. That's why it's hard for me to accept. When the rubber meets the road, nobody else seems to hold your statement above to be true either, especially the atheists. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:32:37 PM · #3399 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, that's another conversation for another day and redirection like I told Louis (happens ALL THE TIME on this thread). |
You're pretty good at it yourself. But hey I get it. It's much easier to redirect and grill the atheists then to put your theories to the test. |
Since 98% of the time it's Friesen posting some thought out answer and the atheists pounding him for it, I thought I'd try it the other way for a bit. It seems people are out of practice defending their own position. Really, all I learn from Rant is most people don't like MY position. I don't know much about THEIR position. |
Well it's refreshing that you're asking. Usually you're answering for them. Shannon, Louis, Dakota and others have repeated expressed their views. I guess because it's not what you picture non-theists to be you reject them.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:34:56 PM · #3400 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, that's another conversation for another day and redirection like I told Louis (happens ALL THE TIME on this thread). I'm interested in the fact that most atheist/materialists believe in free will when determinism stands in their way. |
But I wasn't trying to redirect. I was pointing out to you that there is more than one type of determinism. Please tell me to which type you are referring, maybe explaining how you arrive at that conclusion, or at least a plausible argument for your determination. I cannot respond to a general statement; I require more detail if I am requested to respond in kind. |
Well, we're talking about the determinism that goes with materialism. (isn't that obvious when I originally quoted "although this goes against the fatalism inherent in materialism.") Just substitute the word determinism for fatalism, I guess. |
|
