| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Denial is more than just a river in Egypt .... Frank Zappa
[Edited on 10-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
I'm not denying a higher power, I'm denying you.
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
You are entitled to your own personal analysis of the same scenario
as I was describing to illustrate my understanding using a definitive example.
That view is one I have had for fifty years and nobody has knocked
even a little dent in it by any logical argument, so it is long settled
business for me. If you have some logical argument to offer as a
refutation, please do tell me how do you think that scenario I described
should be described or understood differently ? Lay it on the line.
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
I'm not going to lay anything on the line. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I keep them to myself. If only others would show the same courtesy.
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by madscientist  | In the context of religion, beliefs exist without evidence; in the context of atheism, "beliefs" are specifically due to a lack of evidence. It's
unreasonable to cast the two as equivalent.
Atheists are just skeptics. As there's no evidence, an atheist simply doesn't bother with religion.
[Edited on 10-1-2011 by madscientist] |
Could you elaborate on this as I am reading this (& frankly I read it over several times) I understand the second statement to be an agnostic one
not an Atheistic one.
To be skeptical (to me) means to question rather than to have made up one's mind. Skepticism appears a natural element of lack of proof.
Yet there is no "proof" in either direction.
Please understand me - I do NOT mean to convince another individual to have Faith: it's too personal an issue and I have too much respect for another
viewpoint which I certainly understand to attempt to foster my beliefs on them.
But let's examine issues with science such as the functions of a Blackhole, Event Horizons & related topics. They are not met with solid disbelief
even though they cannot be proven. We can see what we believe is a Blackhole yet we know so little. We see how Faith is an intrinsic part of Man's
experience yet we know so little; why should we deny what we have little supportive evidence to deny (rather than wonder)?
Why is it that two issues [of concepts than cannot be proven] do not share some elements of equivalency?
Please note that I am not speaking of an artistic conceptualizing of an elderly guy w/ a beard who is someone's idealistic concept but a MUCH wider
one. Where I am going with this is there is a difference between agnosticism and Atheism. The later deigns a "Greater" existence impossible with no
proof. Which leads to the old saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
edit*
I trust you also realize I say this in the theme of a relaxed conversation; I have no desire to refute your beliefs, etc. My point is that agnosticism
is a "questioning" but Atheism is a predetermined belief (so says Webster's unabridged). I understand a man's agnosticism, yet I don't see Atheism in
the same light as there is no "proof" that a "Greater" concept (I'll not call that God simply for a widening of discussion) does not exist. :-)
[Edited on 11-1-2011 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
DougTheMapper
Hazard to Others
Posts: 145
Registered: 20-7-2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Energetic
|
|
Zoom out for a bit. I can't help myself but to state the seemingly less-than-obvious:
Religion has tenacity derived from its ability to adapt to modern science through the human condition. God made lightning until we studied
electrostatics. Then God made the electron. It plays on the human condition, something both science and religion share - the assignment of hypothesis
to the unknown. For instance, what is beyond the edge of the known universe? Oh, God of course. But he used to be in the sky before we gained the
ability to go there. We will never find God since he only really exists in the one place we cannot go: the imagination.
Ironically, biblical stories aren't even relevant to modern religion. All they have done is impose beliefs onto ancient people when the stories
therein were actually relevant and believable. Today, the stories are all nonsense or are scientifically impossible or explainable, but the belief
that there is a man in the sky who controls everything has yet to be disproven. For this reason, all modern religions involve some sort of immortal
deity/deities backed only by some shaky claims in ancient books and the fact that so many people in existence today actually believe in them, be it
out of fear or straight simple-minded followership. They'll never be proven or disproven; we will continue to argue about this for the foreseeable
future of mankind. It feels good to believe in something to explain the unexplainable, so there will always be some sort of religion floating around.
On the other side, in a perfectly religious society there will always be someone to ask "why?". Again, it's the human condition.
As for scientists and religion getting along, let's try getting religious people to get along with other religious people first. Historically,
scientists haven't started too many wars with each other based on mere hypotheses.
This is not to say that a religion-free society is the best society. The problem with an areligious society is that people are selfish. They will not
go out of their way to help their fellow man without the threat of punishment. You can't impose laws regarding the honoring of your parents,
adulteration, lying, coveting, or the like. The government would have to be absolute. Instead, there is the fear of the wrath of God. It is
the absolute government: no real punishment is involved, no real threat is imposed; however, the many tend to forget this and are subsequently made
better people on the empty promise of reward. To all who oppose government, do you not also oppose religion? It was not too long ago that the
separation of church and state took place. Government is therefore either religious itself or very, very clever; the former more likely.
Concerning truth of the stories in the bible: There is a distinct possibility that the storytellers were speaking the absolute truth. However,
consider the time at which they were written. Remember when the absolute truth was that the Earth was flat and anyone opposed to this was burned at
the stake? I'm sure accounts we write today about inexplicable things will end up being laughable in the future. Dark matter and string theory come to
mind.
What I find sad is the colossal amount of time people waste in prayer or ceremonial services. God tells you you're immortal. Science can prove to you
that you'll be on earth for about eighty years, plus or minus a bit of chance. Frankly, I'm going to go with what I know and stop wasting time that
has scientifically proven to be limited. Even many religious people seem to realize this and show it by being privately pious and forgoing formal,
expensive, and time-consuming traditional ceremony.
Speaking of death, we don't know where consciousness goes when we die so we have assigned places such as heaven and hell simply as another
manifestation of the human condition. Perhaps as the brain dies, you lose track of time and dream "forever", when really only for a minute or two. Now
there's a science-religion fit... If only I were that optimistic. 
[Edited on 11-1-2011 by DougTheMapper]
I forgot to state my disposition. Frankly, I do not let religion affect my life. I've already wasted enough time writing this, but I suppose it
satisfies my argumentative side. Plus, I like writing.
Cheers, gentlemen!
[Edited on 11-1-2011 by DougTheMapper]
Victor Grignard is a methylated spirit.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DougTheMapper | | The problem with an areligious society is that people are selfish. They will not go out of their way to help their fellow man without the threat of
punishment. |
You couldn't be more wrong. I find it hard to believe that you missed over 200 years of western philosophy. Check Kant, ca. 1790. And before anybody
comes with "Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason": What Kant describes therein is the complete opposite of what your run of the mill devout
monotheist believes (a personal, punishing higher being).
But thanks for bringing it up, IMHO this is one of the worst misconceptions of religious people. And frankly, people who only do "good" things because
their religion orders them to scare me a lot.
BTW: You will find that many societies which are much less religious than the USA have better social systems and are often more free and relaxed in
general.
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
I think Doug meant what he typed - an Areligious society.
As in not religious.
But still, humans are humans, not all of us are good people, and most of us need telling off.
Religion or not. the telling off just comes from different sources for different people.
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
BTW: You will find that many societies which are much less religious than the USA have better social systems and are often more free and relaxed in
general. |
Well this is something that ties into what I said about praying instead of acting. I would say that the USA are probably the most religious developed
country, or at least the one that is most vocal about it (God bless America mantra), but they also have the greatest disparity between rich and poor.
I do not see much compassion there and a lot of hostility mixed with a hint of new age crusades (aka spreading democracy).
It could be that I'm tying in politics with religion in a false correlation here, though.
[Edited on 11-1-2011 by vulture]
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by vulture |
Well this is something that ties into what I said about praying instead of acting. I would say that the USA are probably the most religious developed
country, or at least the one that is most vocal about it (God bless America mantra) |
This simply has no basis in facts at all vulture. Almost every other country I can think of is much more religious and vocal then the USA. Go to
Ireland, Arabia, Israel or all most any other country for that matter and see that we are by far lower on the totem then almost all of them when it
comes to worship and out spokeness of it all. God bless America is nothing more then a remant of a different time in the history of the USA.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1p22kW5Xs Jacobs Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkTHPbMzhGU Almost Persuaded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frKneDcUVtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDatkylkFSM Me and God
[Edited on 13-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
That statement shows how little you know about other countries!
The US has some striking similarities with Pakistan as far as religious observance is concerned!
Ireland, these days, is a predominantly secular society - yes, it was a dark, priest-ridden place but that has changed for the obvious reasons.
|
|
|
madscientist
National Hazard
Posts: 962
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: American Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Rosco, what on earth does that have to do with the modern relations of science and religion? At least keep it vaguely on topic.
You're not going to convert any of the atheists here with random youtube links...
Quicksilver - I've always thought of atheism as not so much an absolute certainty that there is no god, but the realization that it is highly
improbable, so improbable it's not worth spending any time considering. I guess your definition of agnosticism and my definition of atheism overlap.
I weep at the sight of flaming acetic anhydride.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
An atheist could go the monument to the Cox children and demonstrate denial of the same sort as would conveniently (and dishonestly)
"explain away" any other evidence which is contrary to their own personal "belief", and such denial is evidence of a bias that is blinding for an
atheist. You are correct that
no you tube links and probably nothing else is going to convert an atheist, because an atheist has made a decision and conscious choice to be wilfully
ignorant and to disregard evidence which runs counter to their bias. Atheism is a belief which cannot withstand scrutiny as being intellectually
honest, because it requires "blind faith" in the non-existence of something specific, God.
Atheism is an intellectually dishonest "belief" which embraces and proclaims
as being truth a denial of the existence of God when no evidence exists to disprove the existence of God, yet much evidence exists to support the
opposite
"belief" that God does exist. Intellectual honesty would then require acknowledging that a "belief" based upon no evidence whatsoever (which is what
the atheist is practicing) demonstrates greater "blind faith" than does
the "belief" of a Christian because for the Christian it is not required to pick and choose for their comfort what evidence would be believed. There
is evidence
to support the idea and the "belief" that God exists, so that belief has its bona fides within the scope of intellectual analysis seeking "proofs"
more than does
the "belief" of an atheist which must necessarily deny such "proofs" and embrace a belief for which no supporting evidence or proof can be provided.
Quicksilver has tried to point out the irony of this "blind faith" of atheists,
who preferentially "believe" a lesser rationally supported view while calling
it intellectual superiority. There is deception there coming out of the gate.
Agnostics are not at all encumbered by irony of "blind faith" affirmations of
unsupportable unbelief but can indeed have an honest and "righteous" skepticism
which is not the same thing as the "liars denial" of an atheist.
You see an atheist must profess to "know" a thing that is unknowable is true, and therein is found the paradox which is a lie. But an agnostic has
not really
made up their mind and is not sure what to believe regarding the matter of
whether God exists or not.
It is like the case of three men walking along a railroad track. Suppose one is a Christian, one is agnostic, and one is an atheist. The Christian
says, "I hear a train whistle in the distance". The agnostic says "You must have good ears, I don't hear it yet, but I will keep my ears open". The
atheist says "there is no such thing as a railroad, so don't worry, both of you guys are just imagining things".
|
|
|
anotheronebitesthedust
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 24-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
DougTheMapper - I agree with what you said except for a couple things:
| Quote: | | The problem with an areligious society is that people are selfish. They will not go out of their way to help their fellow man without the threat of
punishment. |
Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland are 15-40% religious. Rwanda, Iran, Sudan and the USA are
all over 90% religious. Religious countries always seem to be the most violent. And what is more selfish than murder? Also I don't think that when a
priest molests a child it's out of selflessness. Holy wars, crusades, burning people at the stake, torturing enemy combatants, mass civilian murder,
"refudiating" mainstream science, influencing governments to stop donating condoms to AIDS-infested Africa... these all seem really selfish to me.
| Quote: | You can't impose laws regarding the honoring of your parents, adulteration, lying, coveting, or the like.
|
All those things are not governed in democratic and free societies (nor should they be unless you're lying
about a real crime). And you can't tell me religion stops people from lying or cheating on their spouses.
Ted Haggard
Eddie Long
It's interesting how the 2 newest religions are the most popular.
|
|
|
madscientist
National Hazard
Posts: 962
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: American Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
No proof is offered in that story that supernatural phenomena occurred.
It may have been an amazing coincidence - with so many people on this planet, freak coincidences happen all the time. Or perhaps he knew this place,
and something in his subconscious suggested his kids ended up there.
Then again, it really could have been a "supernatural" phenomenon - but even then, it still proves nothing as to the existence of a god, or
the Biblical one at that.
And who's to say "supernatural" phenomena won't eventually be explained by science? That's not to say they will be explained as figments of our
imagination - they could be entirely real. Our understanding of the natural world is still skin deep, and we have much left to discover.
I weep at the sight of flaming acetic anhydride.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Of course not. Such an occurrence does speak volumes by itself. Perhaps all other extraordinary events thought to be miracles can be explained away
as well. And of course if they can't be explained doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly "logical" or "scientifically valid explanation" possible.
Would it be more analytically correct "analysis"
to apply Occams razor, probably not ...you can't really trust Occam ....as he was friar you know.
| Quote: |
It may have been an amazing coincidence - with so many people on this planet, freak coincidences happen all the time. Or perhaps he knew this place,
and something in his subconscious suggested his kids ended up there. |
But of course, and statistically speaking, if you have enough monkeys sitting at typewriters banging away for long enough, eventually
one of them will just by pure chance type out the complete works of William Shakespeare.
But that's a fat chance.
| Quote: |
Then again, it really could have been a "supernatural" phenomenon - but even then, it still proves nothing as to the existence of a god, or
the Biblical one at that. |
Yes, but atheists do not believe in the "supernatural" so
even one verifiable example of even one supernatural occurrence disproves the validity of atheism on all counts.
| Quote: |
And who's to say "supernatural" phenomena won't eventually be explained by science? That's not to say they will be explained as figments of our
imagination - they could be entirely real. Our understanding of the natural world is still skin deep, and we have much left to discover.
|
By the convoluted rationale acceptable to an atheist, through "science" all things are possible, even twisting reason into a pretzel so long as that
serves the bias of the atheist. Even if the evidence supporting the idea and belief that God exists is purely anecdotal and only supported by
philosophical analyses including those which expose paradoxes inexorably leading to an intuitive conclusion in favor of the "belief" that God exists
.....such belief still would have at least some rational basis even if that basis fell short
of being "conclusive proof". On the other hand, the absolutist view of an atheists bias would preclude any proof ever being sufficiently conclusive
to disuade the bias of an atheist and "convert" it to a differing view. It is by nature
and definition an incorrectable error of logic that the atheist embraces and declares the paradox of intransigent, adamant denial and disbelief,
rather than honestly seeking any different view or answer. The bias and denial which is blinding for an atheist obscures any honest seeking of what
is actual and factual or possible, because they declare impossibility about what they do not know for certain, and ridicule any who do not share their
lack of depth and concur with their view.
|
|
|
anotheronebitesthedust
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 24-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Jared Lee Loughton = Rosco Bodine ???
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
You mean Loughner the loonie toon of recent infamy ?
Well aren't you the quick wit, maybe we should have a
spelling contest.
That's an unfounded and rude equivalency to make, call it slander. The question marks get a huge negative in reply.
There is no equivalency between me and a deranged moron skinhead inclined to go postal with a glock on women and little girls, but on the contrary I
am a man who would and who has intervened to stop that sort of thing.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Yes, I was about to commend him for the earlier post but the "Loughner" reference negated all that, and more!
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Better to call it just plain libel . . .
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
This simply has no basis in facts at all vulture. Almost every other country I can think of is much more religious and vocal then the USA.
|
Really? Did you take a look at the graph anotheronebitesthedust showed in his post? Isreal is definitely more secular than the US.
FYI, Arabia is not a country.
FYI, Pakistan is not a developed country.
[Edited on 12-1-2011 by vulture]
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
But Rosco, can you offer us one scrap of real evidence for god's existence?
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Our own existence is a significant scrap of evidence in that regard if one considers the evidence in nature that progeny are descended from a
progenitor. God wanted a family.
Human beings are Gods children.
What I would accept as circumstantial, anecdotal, philosophical, and historical evidence would not be regarded as real evidence. Reported miracles
get
dismissed as folklore and legends and myths or misunderstood natural or coincidental random occurrences, prophecies get dismissed as being lucky
guesses, and so forth on down the line. The history of the world and Christianity is filled with accounts of unexplained and perhaps unexplainable
occurrences.
The matter of the analysis for the rationality of differing views is settled business for me and the Christianity/agnosticism/atheism (and/or other
false religions)
rationality relationship via comparisons is likewise settled business for decades
for me. I think the germane question is what better accounts for the miraculous things best attributed to God other than belief being true there is
indeed a God ?
Zoom out someone said ......okay zooming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id9O82D9h3A
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
That is a very unproductive & extremely insulting thing to say.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
