| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2012 01:51:36 PM · #501 |
| this is conversation going nowhere we need to settle this with another crusade. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 01:52:31 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I guess the problem I have is when the hierarchy has, and wields unlimited, unquestionable power. |
I'll take as a given, then, that you object to the IRS every bit as vehemently as you do to the Catholic Church? |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 01:54:01 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by Cory:
BTW: I am ALWAYS up for hearing how you know what you know.
If you can give me some real reason that doesn't just sound nuts, you will have made great progress.
My guess is that you'll sound crazy. |
Truly? It would require a fairly significant amount of time and an open mind, but I can tell you exactly how I came to "prove" (to myself) the existance of God. It would be a huge post that would take me several hours (or a couple of weeks) to write and there would be A LOT of Math involved (mostly Probability Math), but if you'd honestly like to hear it and would read with even a half open mind, i'll get to work on it.
But if that was hyperboly, I understand completely and would be greatful if you told me not to bother. It'd be a lot of work and I have several things I'm doing...
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 01:57:00 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
.... You and Cory are the ones that are all upset that I believe in God. I respect your right not to... Hell, I even respect your right not to respect MY right to believe. I'm very sorry if I rocked your boat...
|
Originally posted by Cory:
Man, did you misunderstand the whole point.
I don't mind your beliefs. I don't mind you. I enjoy being disagreed with, but I do require more than the bs you offered for responses, telling me that I just don't get it doesn't cut the mustard man.
The point was that I mind the organization you belong to, I find it to be of a rather dubious nature and am offended by the insistence that I don't know anything about it, despite the fact that I ravenously consume all such information. I agree that I have an agenda, and a certain amount of observational bias, but I think it's to a far lesser degree than the agenda and bias you are almost certainly in possession of.
The church as an organization is not as innocent and benevolent as you appear to think it is, and to claim otherwise makes me think that you must either be missing the bigger picture because you've drank the Kool-Aid, or because you are trying to protect your investment in the organization. *shrug*
Hopefully you'll realize that while I find you to be disappointingly sheep-like, I don't dislike you, or think that you don't have the right to believe what you wish.. But defend the church and I'll be there, waiting.
Cheers,
And I'll try to remain optimistic that you might really find and accept critical thought into your life one day, as I believe that is humanity's only real hope for salvation. ;) |
A +1 for Cory, and just want to add that you're neither upsetting me or rocking my boat, other than your insistence that you are the only one who seems to think he has any knowledge about your church.
You're also not addressing any of the points we're bringing forth, instead being evasive to the point that it appears that you don't know as much about your own church's failings as you do the teachings that you apparently swallow in their entirety.
Please don't pray for me.......I don't want anything to do with the god of your understanding. What I have my faith in simply doesn't have the same kind of selfish, childish, and pedantic ways about him, or her, far be it from me to know which....
ETA: I don't care what you believe, at all, I'm sure Cory doesn't either......that's what faith and personal beliefs are about.......faith and personal beliefs. Where we get our hackles up is when people, such as yourself, try to justify us having to believe YOUR fairy tales.
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 14:02:52.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 01:58:07 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
It would be a huge post that would take me several hours (or a couple of weeks) to write and there would be A LOT of Math involved (mostly Probability Math), but if you'd honestly like to hear it and would read with even a half open mind, i'll get to work on it. |
Ahhh, the good ol' Behe-Snoke argument.
No need to write further.
edit - I'm assuming you're talking about irreducible complexity from what you wrote.
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 14:00:24. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 01:58:22 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I guess the problem I have is when the hierarchy has, and wields unlimited, unquestionable power. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'll take as a given, then, that you object to the IRS every bit as vehemently as you do to the Catholic Church? |
Yes, I do.....don't you?
The power they wield is downright scary!
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:03:30 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
BTW: I am ALWAYS up for hearing how you know what you know.
If you can give me some real reason that doesn't just sound nuts, you will have made great progress.
My guess is that you'll sound crazy. |
Truly? It would require a fairly significant amount of time and an open mind, but I can tell you exactly how I came to "prove" (to myself) the existance of God. It would be a huge post that would take me several hours (or a couple of weeks) to write and there would be A LOT of Math involved (mostly Probability Math), but if you'd honestly like to hear it and would read with even a half open mind, i'll get to work on it.
But if that was hyperboly, I understand completely and would be greatful if you told me not to bother. It'd be a lot of work and I have several things I'm doing... |
No, I'm really quite serious.
But, be warned, I hold a science degree, and am not easily fooled by half-minded proofs.
Also, to be fair, I can "prove" the fact that heaven is hotter than hell using a few quotes from the bible and the laws of thermodynamics.
The bible is not to be used as "proof" as it is nothing of the sort. If you can avoid the typical fallacies, and actually prove something that is of value, you have NO idea how much I would enjoy reading it.
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential.
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 14:31:43. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:25:22 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
BTW: I am ALWAYS up for hearing how you know what you know.
If you can give me some real reason that doesn't just sound nuts, you will have made great progress.
My guess is that you'll sound crazy. |
Truly? It would require a fairly significant amount of time and an open mind, but I can tell you exactly how I came to "prove" (to myself) the existance of God. It would be a huge post that would take me several hours (or a couple of weeks) to write and there would be A LOT of Math involved (mostly Probability Math), but if you'd honestly like to hear it and would read with even a half open mind, i'll get to work on it.
|
it's pretty simple actually. no probabilities, just contradiction.
If you can prove God exists, there is no need to believe and God needs you to believe in order to exist.
So if he exists you cant prove it, or if you can prove it, he doesn't exist.
the whole point is to believe with all your heart in something greater than yourself, if you cant do that you may need to check premise.
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 14:30:52. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:32:09 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by myqyl:
.... You and Cory are the ones that are all upset that I believe in God. I respect your right not to... Hell, I even respect your right not to respect MY right to believe. I'm very sorry if I rocked your boat...
|
Man, did you misunderstand the whole point.
I don't mind your beliefs. I don't mind you. I enjoy being disagreed with, but I do require more than the bs you offered for responses, telling me that I just don't get it doesn't cut the mustard man.
The point was that I mind the organization you belong to, I find it to be of a rather dubious nature and am offended by the insistence that I don't know anything about it, despite the fact that I ravenously consume all such information. I agree that I have an agenda, and a certain amount of observational bias, but I think it's to a far lesser degree than the agenda and bias you are almost certainly in possession of. |
I use to consume the same material... Jack Chik is NOT a source of information though. I would question what sources you've read to learn about the Church... Have you ever read what it teaches? Google "Catholic Catechism"... I'd suggest the link to the vatican site since there's a fair number of Catholics that haven't heard of Vatican II yet. If you have already read it then I apologize for assuming you haven't. If you haven't, I would think you'd like to see what the Church actually says. You may not believe it, but at least you'll know what it is.
Originally posted by Cory:
The church as an organization is not as innocent and benevolent as you appear to think it is, and to claim otherwise makes me think that you must either be missing the bigger picture because you've drank the Kool-Aid, or because you are trying to protect your investment in the organization. *shrug*[ |
Innocent and Benevolent are the last 2 words I would EVER use to describe the Church. I'm not sure where I gave that impression, but I apologize for misleading you. I think the Church has been guilty of several atrosities over the last 2000 years (as the Bible said it would) as well as been a major benefit to the human race. I don't think the Church is the Ogre you appear to think it is
Originally posted by Cory:
Hopefully you'll realize that while I find you to be disappointingly sheep-like, I don't dislike you, or think that you don't have the right to believe what you wish.. But defend the church and I'll be there, waiting.
Cheers,
And I'll try to remain optimistic that you might really find and accept critical thought into your life one day, as I believe that is humanity's only real hope for salvation. ;) |
I doubt many sheep would have been willing to say they are Catholic on in open forum :-) I've been on forums literally since before they were invented (BBS anyone?) and I know full well how they work. You can say you eat babies for lunch and pick your teeth afterwards with puppies and you'll recieve a far more warm welcome than a Catholic on a forum ;-) I love a good debate, but I worry when someone seems to be getting too upset. (My religion suggests that I should try to foster peace on the planet) So I'm always willing to walk away if I start to upset people and let them "win".
As for Critical Thought, I should tell you that I was a rabid Athiest from 1974 through 1983 or so. There is not a book on Critical Thought that I haven't read. I understand the arguments. I came back to "Religion" on the path of "Pure Logic". I'm not a "you have to believe to know" Christian... I'm a "once you know, you'll believe" one.
God bless
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:39:43 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by Cory:
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential. |
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. It's not my typical MO to offer proof of God. (I personally don't think one exists in any way you guys use the word "proof".) I typically concentrate on showing materialists (atheists) their foundation is not quite as solid as they want to believe. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:43:54 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by Cory:
No, I'm really quite serious.
But, be warned, I hold a science degree, and am not easily fooled by half-minded proofs.
Also, to be fair, I can "prove" the fact that heaven is hotter than hell using a few quotes from the bible and the laws of thermodynamics.
The bible is not to be used as "proof" as it is nothing of the sort. If you can avoid the typical fallacies, and actually prove something that is of value, you have NO idea how much I would enjoy reading it.
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential. |
Just so we are clear before I waste a bucket load of time, we are discussing the "existance" of God, not the "nature" of God. Right?
Also I would never try to prove the existance of God from the Bible. That would be the silliest thing ever. "God exists because He said so"... LoL :-)
It's safe to assume that you didn't get a science degree without learning Math Statistics and Probabilities... If that assumtion is wrong, please let me know. There is only one Assumption I believe in, and that ain't it (Catholics will get that one...)
And so you know where I'll be coming from and can start framing your objections I will attempt to prove that the Probability of the Existance of God is so high that the likelihood of God's "non-existance" is nearly impossible. For purposes of this argument I will define God as "a supernatural being or force that is responsible for the design and creation of the Universe".
Fair enough?
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 14:45:59.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:46:27 PM · #512 |
| I sense an upcoming big long post follow by a short post that says, "so what?"... |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:50:48 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
...
Innocent and Benevolent are the last 2 words I would EVER use to describe the Church. I'm not sure where I gave that impression, but I apologize for misleading you. I think the Church has been guilty of several atrosities over the last 2000 years (as the Bible said it would) as well as been a major benefit to the human race. I don't think the Church is the Ogre you appear to think it is
I doubt many sheep would have been willing to say they are Catholic on in open forum :-) I've been on forums literally since before they were invented (BBS anyone?) and I know full well how they work. You can say you eat babies for lunch and pick your teeth afterwards with puppies and you'll recieve a far more warm welcome than a Catholic on a forum ;-) I love a good debate, but I worry when someone seems to be getting too upset. (My religion suggests that I should try to foster peace on the planet) So I'm always willing to walk away if I start to upset people and let them "win".
As for Critical Thought, I should tell you that I was a rabid Athiest from 1974 through 1983 or so. There is not a book on Critical Thought that I haven't read. I understand the arguments. I came back to "Religion" on the path of "Pure Logic". I'm not a "you have to believe to know" Christian... I'm a "once you know, you'll believe" one.
God bless |
:)
Honestly, if you see the church that way, then how can you even think of being a part of such an organization? That really does honestly make me scratch my head in bewilderment. You think it has been a "Major benefit to the human race", I think it's the reason why we have 7 billion people and still are fighting diseases that should have been cured ages ago, while still being stuck to the surface of this rock alone.
Where would we be today without the handicap of magical thinking, and the anchor of religion dragging us down as a species?
I'm still honestly trying to understand the last statement of yours regarding your not being a "you have to believe to know" Christian, but instead a "once you know, you'll believe" one.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seemed very much to me that you were a "have to believe to know" sort of fellow when you were telling me that as a non-Christian that I wouldn't be able to comprehend the correctness of Christianity.
As far as my knowledge, I don't get it from pundits, commenter, columnists, pastors, preachers, news anchors or other people who are almost certainly biased beyond usefulness. I like to gather primary material and make my own decisions, so I would list my knowledge sources as things such as history, psychology, sales experience, personal observation, direct contact with the religious, attendance at church, friendships with many different people who have widely varied belief systems.
Now, please tell me, what line of logic lead you to conclude that there was indeed a god, and that this god was absolutely exactly as described and prescribed by the Catholic Church.
What makes you so certain that the Pastafarian description of God isn't actually more accurate? (astonishing as THAT would be)..
Why is your religion the only correct one? What disproves the different beliefs of the Mormons or the Muslims? The Zoroastrians have been around a while, as have the Druids, yet you dismiss them on what grounds exactly? Buddhists and Hindus both differ from your system pretty radically, but yet you claim to know that they are wrong. How do you know this?
(and if you claim that you don't know they are wrong, then how do you know you are right?)
Just answering that in a well thought out and non-contradictory manner would be pretty impressive to me.
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 14:59:15. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:50:54 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sense an upcoming big long post follow by a short post that says, "so what?"... |
If he's just doing irreducible complexity or any of the other bunk math proof's, I'll have a field day with him.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:52:11 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential. |
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. It's not my typical MO to offer proof of God. (I personally don't think one exists in any way you guys use the word "proof".) I typically concentrate on showing materialists (atheists) their foundation is not quite as solid as they want to believe. |
You're right it's not your MO, but you're on the same side of this line as he is, and are quite the veteran of /rant, so I figured you'd make a good mentor if he actually decided to engage in such an exercise. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:57:05 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential. |
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. It's not my typical MO to offer proof of God. (I personally don't think one exists in any way you guys use the word "proof".) I typically concentrate on showing materialists (atheists) their foundation is not quite as solid as they want to believe. |
Not that you've ever done a good job of that, either. ;)
Well, maybe in your own mind. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 02:58:21 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
No, I'm really quite serious.
But, be warned, I hold a science degree, and am not easily fooled by half-minded proofs.
Also, to be fair, I can "prove" the fact that heaven is hotter than hell using a few quotes from the bible and the laws of thermodynamics.
The bible is not to be used as "proof" as it is nothing of the sort. If you can avoid the typical fallacies, and actually prove something that is of value, you have NO idea how much I would enjoy reading it.
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential. |
Just so we are clear before I waste a bucket load of time, we are discussing the "existance" of God, not the "nature" of God. Right?
Also I would never try to prove the existance of God from the Bible. That would be the silliest thing ever. "God exists because He said so"... LoL :-)
It's safe to assume that you didn't get a science degree without learning Math Statistics and Probabilities... If that assumtion is wrong, please let me know. There is only one Assumption I believe in, and that ain't it (Catholics will get that one...)
And so you know where I'll be coming from and can start framing your objections I will attempt to prove that the Probability of the Existance of God is so high that the likelihood of God's "non-existance" is nearly impossible. For purposes of this argument I will define God as "a supernatural being or force that is responsible for the design and creation of the Universe".
Fair enough? |
Nope. Too vague. That leaves EVERY religion open to continuing to fight about bullshit details.
Your description of "supernatural being or force that is responsible for the design and creation of the universe" is pretty broad, let's just focus in on "supernatural".
Prove just that supernatural phenomena exist and I'll be pretty impressed. I think it's all overactive imaginations and wishful thinking combined with bias towards your beliefs. I don't believe anything exists that is not encompassed in either "Natural" or "Artificial".
Come on, I'm really making this even easier that I could, just to save you from wasting time. This should be an "easy" score if there ever was one, considering that you were just willing to prove not just that Supernatural beings or forces exist, but also that this force/being both designed, and created the universe. So just the supernatural bit should be easy right? |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:15:00 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential. |
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. It's not my typical MO to offer proof of God. (I personally don't think one exists in any way you guys use the word "proof".) I typically concentrate on showing materialists (atheists) their foundation is not quite as solid as they want to believe. |
You're right it's not your MO, but you're on the same side of this line as he is, and are quite the veteran of /rant, so I figured you'd make a good mentor if he actually decided to engage in such an exercise. |
As you can see he's already offered up a most valuable perspective!
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sense an upcoming big long post follow by a short post that says, "so what?"... |
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:25:24 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
But, consult with Dr. Achoo, as he has a pretty good idea of what is and what is not acceptable evidence, as he's managed to try just about every form of "proof" and knows well what is kosher and what is deemed self-referential. |
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. It's not my typical MO to offer proof of God. (I personally don't think one exists in any way you guys use the word "proof".) I typically concentrate on showing materialists (atheists) their foundation is not quite as solid as they want to believe. |
You're right it's not your MO, but you're on the same side of this line as he is, and are quite the veteran of /rant, so I figured you'd make a good mentor if he actually decided to engage in such an exercise. |
As you can see he's already offered up a most valuable perspective!
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sense an upcoming big long post follow by a short post that says, "so what?"... |
|
ROFL. :D |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:35:28 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Nope. Too vague. That leaves EVERY religion open to continuing to fight about bullshit details.
Your description of "supernatural being or force that is responsible for the design and creation of the universe" is pretty broad, let's just focus in on "supernatural".
Prove just that supernatural phenomena exist and I'll be pretty impressed. I think it's all overactive imaginations and wishful thinking combined with bias towards your beliefs. I don't believe anything exists that is not encompassed in either "Natural" or "Artificial".
Come on, I'm really making this even easier that I could, just to save you from wasting time. This should be an "easy" score if there ever was one, considering that you were just willing to prove not just that Supernatural beings or forces exist, but also that this force/being both designed, and created the universe. So just the supernatural bit should be easy right? |
Ok, I won't bother then. Thank you for letting me know before I wrote it all out.
I have absolutely no interest in proving a hypothsist that isn't mine ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:41:51 PM · #521 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Not that you've ever done a good job of that, either. ;)
Well, maybe in your own mind. |
Hey, between the two of us that's the only mind we've got to work with. :D
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 15:42:13. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:43:03 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Ok, I won't bother then. Thank you for letting me know before I wrote it all out.
I have absolutely no interest in proving a hypothsist that isn't mine ;-) |
With that being said, these questions still stand.
I would welcome responses from any of the religious who care to answer. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:43:37 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sense an upcoming big long post follow by a short post that says, "so what?"... |
If he's just doing irreducible complexity or any of the other bunk math proof's, I'll have a field day with him. |
Irreducible complexity as a concept is quite valid. The question is whether it exists or not. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:47:31 PM · #524 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sense an upcoming big long post follow by a short post that says, "so what?"... |
If he's just doing irreducible complexity or any of the other bunk math proof's, I'll have a field day with him. |
Irreducible complexity as a concept is quite valid. The question is whether it exists or not. |
*shrug*
Most humans can't even effectively comprehend something as simple as the lottery odds.
Even the most clever have a very hard time visualizing what billions of years on billions of planets in billions of environments really means.
Irreducible complexity? I say incomprehensible opportunity and incalculable numbers of potential candidates at every moment of history.
ETA: The concept really was rejected by the community at-large.
Message edited by author 2012-12-06 15:50:06. |
|
|
|
12/06/2012 03:49:53 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Ok, I won't bother then. Thank you for letting me know before I wrote it all out.
I have absolutely no interest in proving a hypothsist that isn't mine ;-) |
With that being said, these questions still stand.
I would welcome responses from any of the religious who care to answer. |
Here, I'll ask you a question based on one of your own...
"Where would we be today without the handicap of magical thinking, and the anchor of religion dragging us down as a species?"
As Robert pointed out, the propensity for religious thought is part and parcel of who we are. In other words, it is in our genes. With that in mind, consider the following questions:
1) What does "dragging down" mean? What standard are we not meeting as a species because we are religious? (eg. we aren't peaceful enough? we don't reproduce enough? we aren't tolerant enough?)
2) What is the foundation for this standard? Why is that standard (eg. peacefulness, fecundity, toleration) authoritative in our lives?
3) If that standard is genetic in origin, why would we consider one genetic impulse (peacefulness, fecundity, toleration) as being more worthy of heeding than another genetic impulse (our propensity for religious thought)?
|
|
