| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/07/2005 03:58:16 AM · #251 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
How do you know? |
The very same way I know I dont have a million dollars in my bank account - because it doesnt exist. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 05:04:15 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Originally posted by theSaj:
For all the talk of "science" it is keen to remember that science is often wrong (but often correcting itself). |
Precisely. And that self-correction process is something that religions can't/won't do, because even the slightest move that way would unravel all the miracles and mysteries with which they dupe the meek, collect cash from them, and use them for the better glories of their idol figures. |
This is eloquent rgo - and your views here reflect mine almost entirely. I'm not one to follow something blindly if it's riddled with inaccuracies or inconsistencies, thus I'm not religious. I am however a fundamentally 'good' person(!) - and I believe this is what everyone's goal should be in religion, but too many religions tout selective goodness, ie, to only the religion's followers o rhtose who believe in that particular god. According to some religions, if you don't believe, then you are sent to hell or cast out, etc. Not my idea of goodness.
As an agnostic, I have no boundaries to whom or what I care for.
I firmly believe that most religion is a crutch for the enormous gap left by death and I've yet to be convinced otherwise - despite the efforts of some Born-again Evangelists in my immediate family. I always find that my views on this are confirmed when answering my young son's questions about religion:
> If there's a God why can't we see him?
> How can there be different Gods - does it mean someone is lying or wrong?
> If there's a God why doesn't he stop peoplefrom being so sick?
> Why won't he show himself to stop the fighting?
> Is God old? If he's old when was he young?
> Who made God?
> Why didn't God stop the tsunami or the hurricanes?
This said, I do sometimes struggle with Charles Darwin when viewing the simply amazing creatures and plant life in nature. I'm sure there's plenty more to be answered inyears to come but as yet the story is not complete - but my mind is always open. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 06:05:58 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
> If there's a God why can't we see him?
> How can there be different Gods - does it mean someone is lying or wrong?
> If there's a God why doesn't he stop peoplefrom being so sick?
> Why won't he show himself to stop the fighting?
> Is God old? If he's old when was he young?
> Who made God?
> Why didn't God stop the tsunami or the hurricanes? |
Imagineer,
Believe me that preachers or religious leaders will *somehow* create an answer to those questions - whatever it takes to convince the followers to keep on believing. When you are knee-deep in faith, you tend to accept whatever the faith teacher says, even if it doesnt sound 100% reasonable. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 07:38:15 AM · #254 |
Originally posted by truth4848:
Originally posted by Imagineer:
> If there's a God why can't we see him?
> How can there be different Gods - does it mean someone is lying or wrong?
> If there's a God why doesn't he stop peoplefrom being so sick?
> Why won't he show himself to stop the fighting?
> Is God old? If he's old when was he young?
> Who made God?
> Why didn't God stop the tsunami or the hurricanes? |
Imagineer,
Believe me that preachers or religious leaders will *somehow* create an answer to those questions - whatever it takes to convince the followers to keep on believing. When you are knee-deep in faith, you tend to accept whatever the faith teacher says, even if it doesnt sound 100% reasonable. |
The problem for these people is that everything in their lives is based on faith so they need to keep believing otherwise everything has been a total waste, no one in that situation will admit that they are wrong.
I was brought up in a religious household so I have seen both sides of the argument. Imagineer asked the question Who made God? this is something as a child that I remember asking and it was the singular thing that raised my doubts about religion.
The question still remains Who made God? and where does it stop? who made the mythical thing that made the mythical God and so on.
As an adult I allow my children complete "user choice" they are taught about all types of religions and Gods but they are not pushed in any direction in the way I was pushed as child.
At this stage my oldest son who is 11 years old has told me he believes that something has put us here but we are silly to pray to something that we don't know aything about, as long as we are nice people and do the right thing God will look after us.
I was so proud of him it only took him 11 years to work out something that took me over 25 years to work out.
Message edited by author 2005-10-07 07:39:40. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 10:26:20 AM · #255 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Good morning Jason
Have you replied to me yet...
Pauline |
I had replied to quite a bit, and well...didn't see you make any points since my last major reply, except to inquire three times if I replied.
So perhaps I missed a particular post you made. Alas, I don't cater to you....if I see a post, I try to reply. I replied to most but not everything. Some I choose to because there are a good reply, others I've already covered and see no point of reply when it's been iterated already.
So...probably not, and unless I see the specific question again most definitely not. *shrug* Especially, when there are a handful of people bringing up real issues and discussion currently. Educated and intelligent ones. (ie: brain activity, ideas for determining life, etc.)
Message edited by author 2005-10-07 10:27:06. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 10:33:59 AM · #256 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
But I don't believe that a foetus is a living human being! So it is not nonsense in my beliefs!
|
I want to ask you to just take a simple step back. And consider, if you did believe it was a human being. How would you think? where would you stand? if you just took a single moment to think from that perspective you'd probably understand pro-lifers and their actions. And instead of referring to them so derogatorily and insulting - you might say "hey...I see where you're coming from, I think differently...but yeah...if I thought as you I'd probably be against it".
- Jason |
Could you please tell me where I have been "derogatory" or" insulting" towards pro-lifers?
I had no intention making any intolerant personal or general comments about an individual or a group.I have stated my views and opinions.Obviously you consider I have insulted someone so please inform me how so I can consider if I need to apologise.
I do understand where pro-lifers are coming from - they believe a foetus is a human being and abortion is murder. I just happen to disagree with them!
P |
Since you can't be bothered to look back in the thread despite my quoting it the first time, I have quoted it again.
I am not asking you to "cater" to me whatever you mean by this. You are fast enough to reply at other times!
P
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 10:38:26 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by "rgo":
An object near a black hole gets sucked into the black hole, unless it is the black hole itself, in which everything including light gets sucked into it. |
Oh my, how simplistic. How do we detect black holes? X-rays...
"The X-rays are sent off into space before the matter crosses the Schwarzschild radius and crashes into the singularity. Thus we can see this X-ray emission."
//imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html
Originally posted by "rgo":
If your god was near a black hole, then there can be no god, as it would have gotten incorporated into the black hole. As there can be no god, there can be no universe. Right.
A being without mass...OK. What if indeed. |
Oh my two, if there is an iota of valid logic in there is takes up much less volume than a black hole. If you were near a black hole there would be no you. But you have set a definition of God convenient to you to disprove God. Regardless, the fact that there may yet be understandings beyond your own seems to far a concept for you, but suffice to say. My statements regarding the passage of time are in fact "science". There is in fact a difference in time's passage on earth from the moon according to relativity. (Although extremely slight)
Originally posted by "rgo":
Which is it? God has so much mass or god without mass at all? Your science is fudgy, and your view of the world is as holey as swiss cheese. Knowledge without synthesis and understanding is similar to faith. And I guess that's where you belong. |
Nice comment...ask me the same question I asked you then condemn me for it. Yeah....great debate and discussion in that. And so far, my science has been more accurate than yours.
Originally posted by truth4848:
THERE IS NO GOD, period.
Those who claims there is a God, prove it.
and please dont be lame and ask someone to prove something that is not. |
Perhaps I can't prove the existance of God. But I can prove the existance of fools. Those, who are unwilling to keep an open enough mind to believe that there might exist things they don't know. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 11:08:46 AM · #258 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Perhaps I can't prove the existance of God. But I can prove the existance of fools. Those, who are unwilling to keep an open enough mind to believe that there might exist things they don't know. |
Jason,
It's "existence" not "existance." Also, you've got an extra comma there after "those."
As far as "foolishness" and "having an open mind" are concerned, I don't think you really understand what you just said there. Frankly, I think you often don't understand whatever garbage you just spewed out.
I'd think the fool is someone who ignores what actually exists in reality, in front of his or her eyes and in his or her surroundings. A greater foolishness is to do that for the sake of something that can't be proven to have any relevance to anything.
I give up. Here's my white flag. You're a "masterdebator." In other words, a big, fat waste of time.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 11:52:36 AM · #259 |
Now, around here, when someone says "God told me to ..." the normal procedure is to give the person a shot of Thorazine or something and commit them for a 72 hour psychiatric observation.
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 11:56:19 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Now, around here, when someone says "God told me to ..." the normal procedure is to give the person a shot of Thorazine or something and commit them for a 72 hour psychiatric observation.
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' |
My god man.. This shit is so rediculous, even as cynical as I am, I can hardly believe it.
Sometimes I wonder if the president is purposely trying to create the "end times". |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 12:15:47 PM · #261 |
This man is dangerous!
So we are now not even pretending it was WMDs that took us into this war and killed so many?
I can understand poor intelligence, I can understand politicians lying (not agree with either but understand) but this takes the biscuit!!!
P
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 12:29:16 PM · #262 |
Since we're on the subject of Bush and religion, the following has been bugging the hell out of me the last few days. Hypocrisy indeed!
Faith-Based Hypocrisy |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 12:34:57 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Since we're on the subject of Bush and religion, the following has been bugging the hell out of me the last few days. Hypocrisy indeed!
Faith-Based Hypocrisy |
Thanks for that - seems to sum up a lot of political life at present and not only in the USA before anyone jumps on me! Trust seems to be a missing ingredient in public life and I just hope the voters wake up to the fact soon.
P
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 12:43:57 PM · #264 |
More reasons that religion has NO PLACE in government. Personally, I don't think public officials should be allowed to use superstitious beliefs to guide their public policy. I know that if at my job if I told my boss I had faith that my new code base would not fail but couldn’t prove it to him and had no evidence to support my claim, he would tell me to stick it you know where..
C’mon people it’s the year 2005 can we let go of these childhood stories and move forward? I mean, you don’t still believe in the Easter bunny or Santa Claus anymore right?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 12:51:22 PM · #265 |
Right, Mad, and I think the fact that the administration is selling this Miers based on her faith should make her faith fair game for the Senate at her confirmation hearing. But I doubt the Dems will have the guts to deal with the issue head-on.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 01:09:19 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But I doubt the Dems will have the guts to deal with the issue head-on. |
Unfortunately I agree :( |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 01:13:42 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Right, Mad, and I think the fact that the administration is selling this Miers based on her faith should make her faith fair game for the Senate at her confirmation hearing. But I doubt the Dems will have the guts to deal with the issue head-on. |
So, since she has no judicial record to evaluate, and can't be asked about her legal work (all protected by attorney-client priviledge/executive priviledge) there's really no point in her attending the hearings at all; the senators can just make their speeches, vote, and go home. What a time-saver!
Message edited by author 2005-10-07 13:15:06. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 01:20:30 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Question:
Does the Christian Church have a (HIS)tory of subjugation and views of inequality towards women? If so, does that stance towards women exist today in modern christianity? |
I'll bite. :)
[Preface -- I am simply giving my opinion based on my beliefs as a Christian as a reply that to the question that Olyuzi asked. I am not telling you you have to believe this way. I am not "arguing" the points. I am simply giving my opinion.]
I'm sure that there are those who will pull out the Pauline lines of women not teaching in church, etc. but when considered in the entire context, I find that the Bible (and Jesus, especially) held women in very high regard.
"Wives submit yourselves to your husbands." This is probably the most mis-used and abused "command" in the world. I have known of men to use this verse to domineer over their wives (I think it was even mentioned in this thread.) Almost always, those mis-using it seem to flat out forget the next line. "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves the church." (Just an aside, "church" here does not refer to a building, or even specific group of believers, but the entire kit and kaboodle of Christ-followers). Now, in Christian belief, there is no greater love than what Christ had for the church. So, if a man loves his wife that way, the whole submit thing takes on a new meaning, and is a bit easier to swallow.
When you look at the example Jesus set with regards to women, it is amazing at the compassion he had. The first that comes to mind is the woman caught in adultery. Others include his mother (while on the cross, he was telling one of the disciples [John, I believe] to "behold his mother." Significant because at this time because Mary was probably a widow at this time, and widows had no property rights or rights in general. He was making sure that she would be taken care of, because society at the time would not have.), The woman who washed his feet with her hair, the woman with the "issue of blood for 12 years." on so forth.
So, while I believe that there are those who have used the Bible to subjagate women, I believe they do so in error. I believe God/Jesus highly value women. We are different from men, but that is going down yet another rabbit trail. ;) |
Keeping it simple.... The hierarchy of the household follows the Roman paradigm. It was not so much Pauline lies, but the corruption of Constantine's supporters that twisted Christianity to meet Roman values. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 03:29:37 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Jason,
It's "existence" not "existance." Also, you've got an extra comma there after "those." |
Why thank you RGO. Yes, sometimes when I type fast and late at night I am liable to make mistakes. "Only human"... ;)
Originally posted by rgo:
As far as "foolishness" and "having an open mind" are concerned, I don't think you really understand what you just said there. Frankly, I think you often don't understand whatever garbage you just spewed out. |
Likewise, I often don't think you understand most of the garbage you spew out. Your point?
Originally posted by rgo:
I'd think the fool is someone who ignores what actually exists in reality, in front of his or her eyes and in his or her surroundings. A greater foolishness is to do that for the sake of something that can't be proven to have any relevance to anything.
|
And seeing how I put forth only arguments based on "reality" or arguments that pointed a lack of detailed comprehensive knowledge to enable one to make a decision. The above comment seems pointless. If you merely stated, I have not seen evidence of God and see no reason for believing in God. Were I to see evidence I would. But I have seen none. I do not preclude the possibility - simply state I've had no evidence provided to me to support such possibility." I would have much respect for you. Alas....you concoct poor scientific proofs to state absolutely no God can be. That is why I think your stance is foolish. Because in order to make your conclusions you must claim absolute knowledge. I can understand you basing "decisions" on the knowledge you have. That's only human - and intelligent. But that's not what you're doing. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 06:41:19 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by rgo:
I'd think the fool is someone who ignores what actually exists in reality, in front of his or her eyes and in his or her surroundings. A greater foolishness is to do that for the sake of something that can't be proven to have any relevance to anything.
|
Hold on, my epistemology muscle is twitching here. Rgo, take it easy on the plain-speaking "what's in front of you" crap. For someone who argues so aggressively, you've not exactly made any effort to define the terms you're calling others fools for not adhering to.
What is in front of your eyes is often misleading or meaningless. And what exactly can be "proven to have any relevance to anything"? Out of the set of all things that are in the world or have the property of existing (depending on your choice of lingo), please provide me an example of (your concept of) a subset that can be "proven" to have "relevance" to anything.
Also, how do you define "prove"? What criteria for truth are you setting out here? Is whether something has relevance a "fact", or would you say there's an abstract truth value floating out there attached to each proposition? Is this relevance tied to time, or timeless, and then is your idea of its truth also timeless or not? How do you intend to discover this truth value in order to "prove" whether something has "relevance"?
If you have time left over, you could also define your idea of relevance for me - is it relations of ideas, or a connection leading to an agreement or a disagreement of ideas?
Anyway, as for the whole "believe what you see or you're a fool", you really ought to get some Descartes down you. I bet you're one of those people who says you know what's in front of you. Imagine there's an evil demon controlling everything you see, hear and otherwise sense. Given that possibility, would you be forced to abandon the possibility of holding any knowledge whatsoever about what's "real"? Or would you go so far as to state "but this is a stupid argument because there is no evil demon"?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 07:01:00 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by riot:
Hold on, my epistemology muscle is twitching here.
Anyway, as for the whole "believe what you see or you're a fool", you really ought to get some Descartes down you. I bet you're one of those people who says you know what's in front of you. Imagine there's an evil demon controlling everything you see, hear and otherwise sense. Given that possibility, would you be forced to abandon the possibility of holding any knowledge whatsoever about what's "real"? Or would you go so far as to state "but this is a stupid argument because there is no evil demon"? |
Wouldn't application of the principle of Occam's Razor require one to presume that things "are as the are" without the additional condition of there being an undetectable being distorting what you're seeing? The "simpler" solution is that there are no supernatural/unknowable forces affecting us. |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 07:33:23 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by riot:
Hold on, my epistemology muscle is twitching here.
Anyway, as for the whole "believe what you see or you're a fool", you really ought to get some Descartes down you. I bet you're one of those people who says you know what's in front of you. Imagine there's an evil demon controlling everything you see, hear and otherwise sense. Given that possibility, would you be forced to abandon the possibility of holding any knowledge whatsoever about what's "real"? Or would you go so far as to state "but this is a stupid argument because there is no evil demon"? |
Wouldn't application of the principle of Occam's Razor require one to presume that things "are as the are" without the additional condition of there being an undetectable being distorting what you're seeing? The "simpler" solution is that there are no supernatural/unknowable forces affecting us. |
Sure the assumption that there's a supernatural entity of this kind would be illogical subject to occam's razor. However, ruling out its possibility would be equally illogical. It's simply a skeptical argument that forces you to evaluate the basis of your truth assignments - Descartes eventually disproves it using a quite elaborate progression from his cogito ergo sum argument (proving a priori the existence of god along the way, but that's another story).
Basically if you have a sound theory of truth, and can prove from first principles how you know what you claim to know, then this argument isn't a problem for you. Having read rgo's references to existing in reality however, it may be a problem for him.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2005 01:50:05 AM · #273 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by riot:
Hold on, my epistemology muscle is twitching here.
Anyway, as for the whole "believe what you see or you're a fool", you really ought to get some Descartes down you. I bet you're one of those people who says you know what's in front of you. Imagine there's an evil demon controlling everything you see, hear and otherwise sense. Given that possibility, would you be forced to abandon the possibility of holding any knowledge whatsoever about what's "real"? Or would you go so far as to state "but this is a stupid argument because there is no evil demon"? |
Wouldn't application of the principle of Occam's Razor require one to presume that things "are as the are" without the additional condition of there being an undetectable being distorting what you're seeing? The "simpler" solution is that there are no supernatural/unknowable forces affecting us. |
Sure the assumption that there's a supernatural entity of this kind would be illogical subject to occam's razor. However, ruling out its possibility would be equally illogical. It's simply a skeptical argument that forces you to evaluate the basis of your truth assignments - Descartes eventually disproves it using a quite elaborate progression from his cogito ergo sum argument (proving a priori the existence of god along the way, but that's another story).
Basically if you have a sound theory of truth, and can prove from first principles how you know what you claim to know, then this argument isn't a problem for you. Having read rgo's references to existing in reality however, it may be a problem for him. |
Great. A semanticist has taken over.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2005 08:07:52 AM · #274 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Great. A semanticist has taken over. |
I prefer the term "pedantic bastard". Way to completely ignore my questions though.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2005 09:01:31 AM · #275 |
As one who often will take a topic off subject, even I feel we have diverted grossly from the subject of this thread.
[b]Is religious belief unhealthy for society?/b]
In England we have a society for plain English that dictates that communication should be in the most simple language, not using three words when one would do and using commonly understood words that are easily within most people's knowledge.
Perhaps we could revert to the original question and not try to impress people with our vocabulary or classical education!!!
Or perhaps not........
P
|
|
