Speaking of circular reasoning... and not that I'm accusing anyone of anything. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish. Circular reasoning was mentioned, and I know of a funny comic about it. Here's to lightening the mood.
|
Speaking of circular reasoning... and not that I'm accusing anyone of anything. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish. Circular reasoning was mentioned, and I know of a funny comic about it. Here's to lightening the mood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Justification by faith is problematic in its many forms. It doesn't not allow for any real dialogue. Essentially Chucky you are saying that people have to believe what you believe or they go to h-e- double hockey sticks (I have to be careful what I post, they are watching me).
Just because you believe a thing and others do to, doesn't make it true. Forgive us for testing the waters here but whether you realize it or not your logic is flawed. Step away from your faith and give us some solid answers.
As for being for or against God... cosmic chessboard theology ended over a hundred years ago, come on, pick up a book catch up with the what is going on in the world. We need some serious answers. This... believe in the bible or go to hell schtick is getting real old.
No one that I know would seriously consider that a God of the universe would ask his creation to abandon their logic and reason in order to believe. It just does not make sense.
Lob,Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
If you will permit me an exercise in reference to your post I think I can demonstrate a thing.
Do we know that God exists?
No. "WE" collectively do not, that is part of the problem.
I personally do, unarguably. I have stared into the face of God and it has shaken me to the core. It is an experience I am reluctant to repeat (but that is another story). In fact, many people know to the core of their being that there is a god. We just can't agree on who or what that God is.
If you take all of human history (sans modern aethiests), we can see that humanity has recognized an otherness and have explained it in terms of God or gods. Whether it be sun gods, or wind gods, gods of fire, water, planets, love etc... Man in his most intuitive and uncomplicated form has always explained the things they do not understand in terms of otherness (most specifically god(s)), which is something that shouldn't be ignored or explained away as superstitious or primitive. To ignore intuition in the light of today's technological and scientific advances would be irresponsible.
As we progress as a species we have been able to understand some of these things and place explanation to them. For example water is no longer a god it is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Yet that isn't the answer either, because as we break things down into even smaller parts, we come up with bigger questions that need more answers. There are trace elements even within molecules that are found throuout the cosmos.
People need to look for God, in fact I would argue that science is actually the modern method of understanding God. Francis Collins a theoretical scientist postulates that math is the perfect language between god and humanity as it is universal in form and recognizable by all despite culture, creed, ethnicity, or station in life. Think about it, math is out there, we just have to learn the language and put characters to it, we have theoretically traveled billions of light years just by using math, it blows my mind. Now that doesn't mean we can speak to God or that it can speak back to us but consider the many things we have learned through this process. It is acutally a very accurate way to communicate as the cosmos is slowly revealed to us. I am not saying I believe this completely, but it is a much better form of communication than a two thousand year old text like the bible.
That some, maybe even most, Christians will insist that the Bible contains everything you need to know about God is absolutely absurd. However, and I say this with all seriousness, respect, and admiration for the book, and its followers.
That book DOES contain all one needs to know about how the God of the universe, wants us as a creation, to treat one another. This should not be over looked or minimalized because some very silly people believe some very silly things. Talking serpents, virgin births, resurections, healings... paaaalease!
Peace!
That's like asking if an atheist can be ethical. Sure they can. Why wouldn't they be? The next surgeon to operate on you may be jewish, muslim, buddhist , that does not mean that they are of a different ethnic decent either. Ethnic decent may have nothing to do with a person's religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kick277Jen
That question almost implies that the only good people in the world are Christians. Do you realize how that sounds? It does not sound very "Christian" that's for sure. There are a lot of good people in the world who aren't Christian. They are in every walk of life. They have professional careers to homeless people. Christians could be a child molester or not. A person's religion does not always dictate their behavior, most times it does not.
A good person may have no religion at all. If there is a God, and he/she is forgiving and loving I doubt seriously that religion does matter to a loving and forgiving God. If there is a God and he/she is hateful and a punisher then maybe it does. Is a Christian God hateful? Why don't you ask he/she? Thanks for being open minded enough to ask.
It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyv
We have a need to understand and make sense of the world around us. So we develop the axiom that 'any' answer is better than 'no' answer at all. Once upon a time, it made sense to believe in gods. Back when we didn't understand why volcanoes erupted, how tsunamis formed and had no idea about tectonic plates shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know about germs, bacteria, or viruses and had no idea why people got sick and/or died. There was a time where it may have been perfectly reasonable to invent powerful invisible beings/gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.Quote:
If you take all of human history (sans modern aethiests), we can see that humanity has recognized an otherness and have explained it in terms of God or gods. Whether it be sun gods, or wind gods, gods of fire, water, planets, love etc...
I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!Quote:
Man in his most intuitive and uncomplicated form has always explained the things they do not understand in terms of otherness (most specifically god(s)), which is something that shouldn't be ignored or explained away as superstitious or primitive. To ignore intuition in the light of today's technological and scientific advances would be irresponsible.
I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.Quote:
As we progress as a species we have been able to understand some of these things and place explanation to them. For example water is no longer a god it is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Yet that isn't the answer either, because as we break things down into even smaller parts, we come up with bigger questions that need more answers.
Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.Quote:
That book DOES contain all one needs to know about how the God of the universe, wants us as a creation, to treat one another.
I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED the bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!
Excellent
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
I am not reluctant, I gladly tell it. To tell it truthfully, it is a long story, too long to write in a thread it encompasses many years of my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
I can certainly see how on the surface it would seem so. However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.Quote:
What is a much more likely scenario is that man has a need to understand and make sense of the world around him. 'Any' answer is better than no answer at all. It made sense once upon a time when we didn't know why volcanoes erupted, or how tsunamis occurred and had no idea that tectonic plates where shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know germs, bacteria, and viruses existed, so we had no idea of why people got sick. There was a time where it may have even been logical to create powerful and invisible gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.
The deeper we look the more questions we find. Science has not disproved God, it has merely been able to put better names to processes and create bigger and more profound questions. Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one’s self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue. We are not satisfied with distance, or space, we keep going. Once we name a thing, it is not over, we keep looking, we keep searching, we can’t look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.
A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.
While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.Quote:
I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!
They weren’t “making” one up. They used the same tools we have today. They were using reason and logic; they just had less technological tools in their tool box as we have today. We have to stop thinking in terms of right and wrong and start thinking in terms of process. Someday we might find ourselves defending scientific theory in the light of more technological processes, and we will be perpetuating the same problems.Quote:
I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.
I have read and studied the bible in all of its shame and glory. You are absolutely right. But I stand by my statement. I am not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The teachings attributed to the person Jesus of Nazareth are quite profound. I am intentional in separating Jesus from the common belief of the bible as it is my understanding that even his apostles misunderstood him (much like the majority of Christians do today). Add Constantine to the mix and it is very hard to find the true nature of Christianity.Quote:
Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.
I agree. It is mainstream Christian dogma that makes the bible ethically and morally founded. Were they to truly read their bible with open minds they would certainly see that it is not so. However, they have spent centuries justifying their texts and muddling the minds of their followers that it has opened the door to biased subjective interpretation.Quote:
I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED to bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!
The bible wasn’t written to be a hand book for humanity (unless God is an idiot). It is a collection of texts that have been shaped and sorted to fit a theology that was sanctioned by Constantine to keep the religious and political peace in the 3rd Century.
In many instances the bible has profound, moral and ethical truths, but that is not what it is about. It also has some horrendous situations and justifications, but that is not what it is about. The truth is…it is not about anything. At best we can say that the texts are men’s interpretation of the holy or otherness in certain historical, allegorical, situational, literal, and metaphorical instances.
There is a big difference in saying that morality comes from god as opposed to morality comes from the bible. I don’t have a problem saying that morals come from God as I believe them to be hardwired, much like our instincts to love and search for meaning. People get confused on this issue when religious people make the mistake of making God synonymous with the bible. The Hebrew oral tradition out dates the written text by as much as 5000 years and it would be ludicrous to presume that people prior to the bible had no morals.
For what it is worth…
~S.
I agree, but it's even worse than that. They put their interpretation of the Bible above God. I call it bibliolatry.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyv
I love watching all this debate, but what does any of this have to do with the question "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyv
I can tell from your posts that you're thoughtful and intelligent, but you've made a glaring error here. I'd like to ask you to stop and think this through...
Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.Quote:
However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.
This is a good thing and we should expect nothing less.Quote:
The deeper we look the more questions we find.
Nor will it ever. Science has not disproved gremlins, fairies, or unicorns either. This doesn't mean we have any compelling reason to think they exist, however.Quote:
Science has not disproved God,.
You keep bringing up the word 'intuitively'. I wonder what you mean by that? I further wonder why you seem to be implying that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence? Perhaps I'm just not as impressed by intuition as you are.Quote:
Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one's self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue.
Of course we can! And I'm sure if you take moment to think about what you're saying, you'd agree...Quote:
we can't look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.
You don't think we learn and progress as time goes on? You don't think our understanding of things improves? Are you suggesting that we cannot now say the previous presumption that the earth is flat was wrong?? Or that we shouldn't dismiss the notion that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, instead of the other way around? Think about what you're saying here. You don't strike me as a fool, yet this is an incredibly foolish statement. Please re-think it, or re-explain what you mean.
This is no doubt correct. One hundred years from now we will be proven wrong about many things, I am sure. But I fail to see your point. What has this got to do with the fact that earlier people were wrong about many things such as Thor and what caused thunder, or the shape of the earth? Surely, you don't think this is an argument for god, do you? If so, that's some very poor logic on your part. No offense... Your entire position on this needs to be re-thought out.Quote:
A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.
I'll give you some slack here. What we now consider superstition, was a 'theory' back then. Predicting an all-powerful super being was probably as close to a scientific theory as they could come up with back then. Like science today, it was a 'prediction'. But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...Quote:
While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.
Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified. The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.
There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying. But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.
Because before we can answer this (or any) question, we should examine the source(s) from which we obtain our answer from. Unless of course, you don't actually care about whether the answer you get is true. That might sound silly, but it's become increasingly obvious to me, that many believers don't actually care about 'truth'. Rather, they seem much more concerned with finding answers that console them. Even if they have to make one up, or ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by amIwrong
Haha, I see. But to be fair, being that it is all a matter of faith, doesn't the term speak for itself. Faith. So, there really is no verifiable source of truth, just a faith that it is there. I know a lot of people use a book of their religion, such as the bible as a reference, but no person in the world could know if it has been tampered with by man. I mean, it was wirtien by man. So, then, the question, technically can never be answered on that basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
Copy me on that PM, scott, if you send it. I'm interested too.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
This is a good debate, guys, and I think I agree with you both, but on this particular point, I have to come to scott's defense. If I understand correctly, he's not plugging God in for answers that he doesn't have. And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?". Obviously, there are still plenty of people around who are quite satisfied with the answer "God did it. Now quit asking." But scott doesn't strike me as one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
If I've misrepresented your idea, scott, I apologize in advance. It's a fair statement of my idea, at least.
I agree as well, no doubt. I just meant how that tied into the question I wasn't sure, but wanted to clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
This is a good example of a thread that has taken on a life of its own, one not necessarily much related to the original horse, which was beat to death several pages ago. They're fun sometimes, and as long as they don't get mean and nasty, the mods usually let them run.Quote:
Originally Posted by amIwrong
I think you're pushing logic beyond its useful domain here. For categorical logic like this to work, it has to be applied to a concept of "god" for which a precise and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" has operational meaning. I don't think we're there yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
[QUOTE]I will certainly put some thought into that. I have never written it down, it might do me good. Personally I think it is a story better told over a second or third shot of Tequila, both in the telling and the hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
It wouldn’t be the first time I will open my mind to your suggestion.Quote:
I can tell from your posts that you're thoughtful and intelligent, but you've made a glaring error here. I'd like to ask you to stop and think this through...
You are absolutely right. The context in which I was referring however was not the end game (whether or not God exists) it was process (how we determine whether god exists and the problems that come with the kitchen). Me, I do not think I had made myself clear.Quote:
Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.
Lets use a better medium. Likewise science can’t prove human rights or justice. Yet we have very compelling reason to know they exist. In my opinion, so you know my position, science and religion are Yin and Yang. It is human process that confuse and polarize the two.Quote:
Nor will it ever. Science has not disproved gremlins, fairies, or unicorns either. This doesn't mean we have any compelling reason to think they exist, however.
If I implied that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence, I have not made myself clear. I thought it obvious that as a species we have lost/abandoned a large sense of our intuition. We have embraced other processes, scientific and technological and left a rent in the fabric of our psyche. I am merely suggesting that we should slow down, consider the information at hand and take a more intuitive look. It seems our voracious hunger for knowledge is ever reaching, always forward and little time is spent considering. Like the Jeff Goldbloom line in Jurasic Park, “Science can be so preoccupied with whether or not it can do a thing, that it doesn’t stop to think whether it should do a thing” (loosely paraphrased).Quote:
You keep bringing up the word 'intuitively'. I wonder what you mean by that? I further wonder why you seem to be implying that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence? Perhaps I'm just not as impressed by intuition as you are.
Lob, this is where you are wrong, I am an incredible fool :D . Again I think I have not made myself clear. I am not saying we shouldn't alter our information, as we progress. Of course we progress and make strident growth, I am merely trying to point out that we haven't really gotten very far. As to improve, well… that I am not so sure of, after all more people are starving in the world today than in any other time in history, likewise our incidence in genocidal accounts. We have weaponry that can decimate entire continents. We embrace false ideologies through the same processes that we criticize religion for. If we can’t feed or protect one another (the foundation of the human experience) how improved can our understandings be?Quote:
Of course we can! And I'm sure if you take moment to think about what you're saying, you'd agree...
You don't think we learn and progress as time goes on? You don't think our understanding of things improves? Are you suggesting that we cannot now say the previous presumption that the earth is flat was wrong?? Or that we shouldn't dismiss the notion that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, instead of the other way around? Think about what you're saying here. You don't strike me as a fool, yet this is an incredibly foolish statement. Please re-think it, or re-explain what you mean.
We can put a robot on Mars but we can't get supplies and materials to the 9th district in New Orleans even this many years afterwards. People need to eat…they should be fed, people need to be protected…they should be protected from both the elements and oppression.
California has the agricultural ability to feed the whole of the U.S. The U.S. has the agricultural ability to feed the entire world’s population. Science has determined this statistically as well as factually. Yet we throw away more food (as a nation) in 3 months than Africa can grow in a year. But I digress.
I was merely suggesting that instead of looking at it in terms of right and wrong that we view it in terms of process. By doing so we can attach ourselves to a tradition of understanding instead of isolating and polarizing our positions when in our attempts we are looking for the same answers.
My intention is not to prove or argue for God, and this would not be the first time my logic has been poor. I am merely trying to suggest another way to view it so that we can see the larger picture in hopes to graduate the argument to a position where things actually matter. Hindsight is 20/20 or so they say. The problem though is that consequence is paid long into the future. What I mean to suggest is that though they are “wrong”, and we have acknowledged that we might find ourselves just as “wrong” in the future, we are still spending our time focusing on the things that are wrong about our past instead of trying to use our progressive information for the betterment of humanity. We would rather have cell phones than place healthy running water in 3rd world nations. For all of our science and technology we have created very little GOOD. (I had to throw that part in so that amIwrong would not chastise the argument ). Is it just me or is she just way too sexy to be talking theology?Quote:
This is no doubt correct. One hundred years from now we will be proven wrong about many things, I am sure. But I fail to see your point. What has this got to do with the fact that earlier people were wrong about many things such as Thor and what caused thunder, or the shape of the earth? Surely, you don't think this is an argument for god, do you? If so, that's some very poor logic on your part. No offense... Your entire position on this needs to be re-thought out.
Please do not offer slack, I have been known to hang myself. Also, I would suggest that it wasn’t prediction so much, but rather conjecture based on the myths and traditions of their days, things portent and symbolic.Quote:
I'll give you some slack here. What we now consider superstition, was a 'theory' back then. Predicting an all-powerful super being was probably as close to a scientific theory as they could come up with back then. Like science today, it was a 'prediction'. But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...
I am a bit confused by your use of words. It is not my intention to draw you into a semantic argument can you clarify for me?Quote:
Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified.
First, primitive refers to the earliest of our kind or species so we are heading out of context. The people who interpreted nature and as a result, postulated gods as are not primitive. They were every bit as intelligent as you or I, they just had a different set of tools to work with. We are talking about people who created calendars and mathematics, medicine and civilization, politics and government.
Second, falsified refers to altering or representing something falsely, or proving a theory false. It is important to make the distinction that these were not theoretical beliefs. As such, they were as much fact as we consider justice and human rights. They have not been disproved, or falsified, they have been moved into a different category.
Also, if I may be so bold. The theory of Evolution and Natural selection has not falsified Supreme Being creation (it has proved to be an obstacle for a literal interpretation of the Genesis text, but that is apples and we are talking oranges). Who’s to say that a Supreme Being didn’t use the process of Evolution to create the cosmos?Quote:
The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.
I am very poor at making my points forgive me. I live very much in my own head. While the supernatural have been explained in other ways those new explanations are still lacking, much like the supernatural explanations. The book isn’t closed on thunder and lightning, in fact it has opened the door to particle acceleration. We just have another piece of the puzzle, we may know the compounds involved, but what we call thunder today may turn out to be as ridiculous sounding as Thor a hundred years from now. In the process we may be closer to the answers than they were, but we have not explained Thor away, we have just re-named it. The concept is still there. It is not right or wrong…it just is.Quote:
As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.
Actually it means that I have a personal unwillingness to believe a truth. In point of riposte it also presumes you know the truth. If you have the truth by all means offer it. I don’t see that you do. Allow me to admit my skepticisms; I have spent a lot of time trying to be objective. I believe truth is subjective so you can reason my conundrum. My life’s has directed me to question and challenge everything. Make no mistake though, I do not find it satisfying. I find it unnerving and frustrating. I do not plug God into my misunderstandings; I just find it ridiculous and irresponsible to omit God from the process when we have no answers.Quote:
There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying.
This is where we part ways. God is more than “likely”, God is fact. We just have no words or characters to describe it accurately. We tried Thor, that didn’t work. We tried thunder, that hasn’t worked. We tried Evolution, that hasn’t worked. We have tried, Big Bang, that hasn’t worked. We will keep trying until we get it right. God is truth and we are all searching for it. Whether it takes the form of a benevolent creator, or a mad scientist, I am sure I do not know, but the truth is out there, we have evidence, and we keep looking. It is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of process and we are part of it whether we are right or wrong.Quote:
But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.
Peace,
Scotty
I've always said I don't have a problem with people who are intellectually honest enough to admit they are relying on their 'faith'. It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by amIwrong
I am on board with you 100%. I think we are talking about the same point but from different angles.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
Ordinary,
You understood my point well, and clarified it better than I could, thank you. I would have agreed with you but "they" have taken my agree/disagree privalages from me because I disagreed too much.
~S.
I seeQuote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Then where else does he get god as an answer to anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Maybe we've been talking past each other a little, because I couldn't agree more with this. Of course, we are driven by the same insatiable thirst for knowledge as our ancestors were. And of course, we will be shown wrong on many things just as they have. But what does this have to do with the question of whether there are any such things as gods?Quote:
And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?".
As time goes on science replaces inefficient answers with progressively better ones. They might not be 100% correct, but they are certainly better than the answers of 1000 years ago. To see this is true, just give me one scientific answer (however inadequate) that has replaced by a better religious answer! Give me just one!. I can give countless examples the other way around where science has replaced inferior religious answers with better ones. Nothing proves my point better than this simple realization.
If you're really that bored, maybe working on your literary skills will give you something to do. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by amIwrong
The vast majority of people in the world are NOT christians...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kick277Jen
Okay, so I just found this thread and tried to read the whole thing but it got kind of redundent twords the end so I may have skipped a bit so I'm not sure if anyone has said this or not.
According to most of you I'm going to hell :-) and oddly enough I'm okay with that because your views are not the same as mine.
I think it's impossible to say if a person is going to heaven or hell or if they can do good in the sight of G-d if they are any religon, atheism included. Technically only in your heart do you know if G-d is real or not because you cannot prove his existence... it all depends on faith. You don't know until you die weather heaven or hell is even real or not and I'm not sure about you I haven't spoken to too many dead people lately.
Moreover, this question is kind of biased because if the person would have asked can a christian truly do good in the sight of G-d most of you would have said "hell yea!" because most of you are christian. Your beleifs teach you different things about different religons and there are so many religons out there and not all of them can be right about the ideas of other religons or even G-d for that matter... and please spare me and don't say that you know with all your hear and soul christianity is right because you might in your heart and soul but that is not physical evidence it is faith.
Now for my actual take on this question...
We are all G-d's children regardless of religon (yes I'm inculding Islam because Allah is the same G-d that Jews and Christians have and there are probably more religons that I'm forgetting that have branched off these primary three). If G-d actually loves us like we think he does he would not condem us ALL to eternal suffering unless we did something terrible (being a non-christian dosen't count as terrible in my book, sorry).
I'd like to think that G-d loves all of us equal regardless of religon, therefore we are all good in the sight of G-d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that I am “relying” on faith. In fact, I will go as far as to insist that my conclusion of the supernatural is well thought out and exist on rational conjecture and evidence as supplied. I welcome your thoughts and if you can demonstrate to me how I am wrong, I will humbly acquiesce with gratitude for the superior knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
You say you have a problem with this. I find it odd that your pursuit seems intellectual but you yet you seem very similar to the religious that you admonish. It seems to me you are doing the same thing they are. Telling people what they have to believe, which is counter-intuitive to intelectualism.
What is the difference between what they do and what you do? Essentially you are saying that as long as people admit that it is only faith, that it has no basis in reality, fact or evidence, that you will accept their opinions. However as soon as they place it outside of the category of faith you have a “big” problem.
You are admitting that you have a problem with people who don’t conform to your standards of how things should be looked at. You are not different, you are using the same methods from a different perspective.
~S.
Then you missed all the good stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gernald
We left all that hell stuff back with the religious.Quote:
According to most of you I'm going to hell :-) and oddly enough I'm okay with that because your views are not the same as mine.
I for one don't know much about heaven or hell, but I think lob allow you to believe these things if you kept it in the parameters of your "faith". :DQuote:
I think it's impossible to say if a person is going to heaven or hell or if they can do good in the sight of G-d if they are any religon, atheism included. Technically only in your heart do you know if G-d is real or not because you cannot prove his existence... it all depends on faith. You don't know until you die weather heaven or hell is even real or not and I'm not sure about you I haven't spoken to too many dead people lately.
Yeah, I think you missed the past four pages or so the people you are referring to retired.Quote:
Moreover, this question is kind of biased because if the person would have asked can a christian truly do good in the sight of G-d most of you would have said "hell yea!" because most of you are christian.
Man you are going to get on well with Lob on that faith issue!Quote:
Your beleifs teach you different things about different religons and there are so many religons out there and not all of them can be right about the ideas of other religons or even G-d for that matter... and please spare me and don't say that you know with all your hear and soul christianity is right because you might in your heart and soul but that is not physical evidence it is faith.
I think Christians deserve your criticism. If there is a god and I believe there is, we are all his creattion. As for being children, well I do not like that characterization much. It places God in the category of Father, and if that is so, he is a pretty lousy one!Quote:
Now for my actual take on this question...
We are all G-d's children regardless of religon (yes I'm inculding Islam because Allah is the same G-d that Jews and Christians have and there are probably more religons that I'm forgetting that have branched off these primary three). If G-d actually loves us like we think he does he would not condem us ALL to eternal suffering unless we did something terrible (being a non-christian dosen't count as terrible in my book, sorry).
I would like to think that also. It is unfortunate that it takes a brain to think instead of warm, fuzzy emotions. If God is a father and loved us equally, he is a dead beat dad as a Good father would treat his children equally, love them equally, feed them equally, protect them equally. He/it doesn't.Quote:
I'd like to think that G-d loves all of us equal regardless of religon, therefore we are all good in the sight of G-d.
It would be nice though!:(
Scotty
I just need to be presented with this 'evidence' you speak of. I'm sure that's where we're going to disagree. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by scottyv
I don't fault you for using it, but that's a very old and tired argument. I'm not the one making any claims. I'm simply stating there is no compelling reason to think that gods exist, just as there is no compelling reason to think a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If YOU think you do, like I said... I'm all ears.Quote:
You say you have a problem with this. I find it odd that your pursuit seems intellectual but you yet you seem very similar to the religious that you admonish.
Again, I am not in any way, shape, or form, telling anyone what to believe. I'm merely pointing out that if you want the rest of us to believe that your imaginary friend really exists, then the onus is upon you to provide some evidence this is so. Otherwise, you can't expect non-believers to take you seriously. If I told you there was a ghost living in my closet, I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously unless I could offer up evidence for why I think so. (btw- I'm using 'you' in a general sense. I don't mean you personally).Quote:
Telling people what they have to believe, which is counter-intuitive to intelectualism.
That is correct.Quote:
Essentially you are saying that as long as people admit that it is only faith, that it has no basis in reality, fact or evidence, that you will accept their opinions. However as soon as they place it outside of the category of faith you have a “big” problem.
Here's the key point we disagree on. They are not just MY standards. They are the same standards you yourself would hold anyone to on any other subject except religion or theism. Think about it... What other subject would you allow me to get away with simply 'asserting' something to be true without any evidence for it? What about that ghost living in my closet? Sound plausible to you?Quote:
You are admitting that you have a problem with people who don't conform to your standards of how things should be looked at.
Where there is humanity, good is always there. Be a christian or not, be a human!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kick277Jen
I'm simply saying that one of the following propositions are true: 1). There is a god. 2). There is no god.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Do you dispute this?
There is too a Flying Spaghetti Monster... prove there is not!:DQuote:
I'm simply stating there is no compelling reason to think that gods exist, just as there is no compelling reason to think a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
~S.
Conversely, where there is evil there is always humanity, be a good human!
Yes, I do dispute it, at least until we have an operational definition of "god" to work from. Only if we can agree on a clear and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" are we in a position to apply the rules of categorical logic to determine the truth or fallacy of each statement. Until then, both are meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
I was thinking this as I wrote my response and am glad you brought it up. I very much agree with you. Suppose our universe was started by a 5th dimensional kid playing with his chemistry set. Would he be considered a god? What if we are living in an alien's computer simulation? Would the alien be a god?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
So you're 100% correct that we need to define what we mean by 'god'. But whichever one of these specific gods we are talking about, I think we can agree that each one either exists or does not. A biblical god who can simultaneously listen to and answer billions of prayers, either exists as stated, or does not. If one wants to assert that such a god exists, then he is obliged to offer evidence before expecting anyone else to believe it also. Would you at least agree with that?
Well, now scotty, I have to take the lobster's side on this one. Non-existence can't be proven. The burden of proof is on the side arguing for existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyv
But a conclusion that a god with the stated attributes does or doesn't exist, has no bearing at all on the question of whether some other god with a whole different set of attributes might exist or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
As a purely logical matter, I do agree. But religious belief is not a purely logical matter. Evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Theists are perpetually pointing to this or that aspect of the world around us and insisting that it's slam-dunk evidence for the existence of god as they conceive him to be. You and I look at the same features of the same world and see no such evidence. All we see is a challenge to come up with a different explanation for the alleged "evidence", and of course, it's always possible to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
All these conundrums are the reason why I've pretty much lost interest in discussions about god's existence. To the extent that I'm interested in god at all, it seems to me that a more telling question is, "What attributes would a god have to possess in order to be believable to me?"
[QUOTE]Lob, you don’t want evidence, you have ignored vast quantities. There is so much evidence that it can’t be ignored, even by you. Prolifically published physicists think that God is a reasonable explanation to the universe (maybe not the God of the bible, but God none the less).Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
Remember, it is not my intention to convert, so I could truly care less what you believe. But if I may say so, you misrepresent yourself. You come off open minded when in actuality you are quite closed off. There are many things that there is no evidence for yet you accept them readily, where is the scientific evidence for fairness? Why would the possibility of a god be any different?Quote:
I don't fault you for using it, but that's a very old and tired argument. I'm not the one making any claims. I'm simply stating there is no compelling reason to think that gods exist, just as there is no compelling reason to think a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If YOU think you do, like I said... I'm all ears.
No, no, of course not, you are saying that we can’t get along, if people won’t conform to your haphazard, close-minded, faulty logic.Quote:
Again, I am not in any way, shape, or form, telling anyone what to believe.
And I quote:
I take it back, that takes a shape and a form, I won't call it ignorance because I truly do not thing you are, but it comes close.Quote:
Lobrobster: “It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.
I feel no compulsion to get anyone to believe in my imaginary friend, in fact, I wish I didn’t believe in it either (it would make life much more simple, ignorance is blissful) I am merely sharing my opinions. The onus is on you to open or close your mind, if you choose to only believe a thing based on evidence... well your position is flawed. You can hang your hat on evidence if you want, but you would have to dismiss many of the things that determine the human existence.Quote:
I'm merely pointing out that if you want the rest of us to believe that your imaginary friend really exists, then the onus is upon you to provide some evidence this is so.
You should really use examples that are prevalent. Before it was unicorns and gremlins, now it is ghosts. That you equate the concept of god with such things really demonstrates how willingly you are to turn your brain off. Throughout history up until modern day philosophers and theologians, scientists and physicists have pondered the concept of God, have written books about the concept of God and its likely or unlikelihood. But here you are equating the concept it to unicorns, dragons and ghosts.Quote:
Otherwise, you can't expect non-believers to take you seriously. If I told you there was a ghost living in my closet, I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously unless I could offer up evidence for why I think so. (btw- I'm using 'you' in a general sense. I don't mean you personally).
No, not ghosts nor dragons…but how about things that science has no evidence or theory for that we contend with every day like… human rights, equality, human spirit, fairness, justice, love, memories, sadness, hapiness… I could go on and on, but what's the point if there is no evidence then it doesn’t exist, and if it doesn’t exist why are we talking about it?Quote:
Here's the key point we disagree on. They are not just MY standards. They are the same standards you yourself would hold anyone to on any other subject except religion or theism. Think about it... What other subject would you allow me to get away with simply 'asserting' something to be true without any evidence for it? What about that ghost living in my closet? Sound plausible to you?
You know…while it may not be enough for you, just the fact that we can contemplate it is evidence enough to consider it. Well at least it is enough to demonstrate our existence, remember Descartes? Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am.
Take care,
Scotty
I see the point you're trying to make, but it isn't entirely true. As we can begin to rule out volcano and thunder gods, then gods of the sea, sun, and mountains DO become less and less likely! Probabilities CAN be used to ascertain the likelihood of certain gods. If one doesn't understand this, then they simply don't understand math or Bayes Theorem and need to educate themselves further.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Agreed! And evidence evaluation is (or should be)! So discussion over? :)Quote:
But religious belief is not a purely logical matter.
Vast quantities? I'm STILL listening!.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyv
Wait a sec... I thought you said you hang YOUR hat on evidence as well? Didn't you say you had evidence? How long are you going to make us wait for it?Quote:
You can hang your hat on evidence if you want, but you would have to dismiss many of the things that determine the human existence.
You don't seem to understand that the evidence you have so far offered for the existence of god is EXACTLY the same amount we have for unicorns, gremlins, and ghosts. Basically ZERO. Nada. A big goose egg.Quote:
You should really use examples that are prevalent. Before it was unicorns and gremlins, now it is ghosts.
Do you know how Descartes arrived at that famous quote? He realized there was nothing he could actually prove. Except... That he was thinking. Therefore, he was. It was the only thing he could prove to himself. Good luck!Quote:
Well at least it is enough to demonstrate our existence, remember Descartes? Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am.
You talk a good game lob, but your denial of the obvious, and your lack of response to the "evidence" is disappointing. This was fun until you started ignoring the core of our debate. Maybe we will cross paths on another thread. Peace to you and yours!
Take care,
Scotty
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 AM. |