Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[new_trader]

New Trader for clever guys you simply don't get a simple point I'm making.

Weight does not exist. It is merely an attribute of an entity. A piece of rock doesn't say hey I'm 1 kg or I am 1 anything. It is merely only a piece of rock. The rest of science is mans creation in understanding the piece of rock. Rock doesn't need mass to exist but science needs rock to have mass size and substance so it can define the rock density and label it.

By the same logical reasoning man needs to know and try and decipher who what the creator is. For this reason it has been labelled God. Now if you don't believe in the explanation of the creator labelled God, there is nothing to stop you rebranding the creator = God = Evolution of man = creation / creator. Let people follow choose the facts and arguements presented. This is what has been done with all the different religions. Even the Aztecs with their worship of the Sun God and human sacrifice are searching for some devine definition and guidance.

So you find the human system of labelling kg and callibrating weight very useful. Good. I am so glad.

You find the human labelling of the creator God not so good. I admire the attempt but I too am confused by all the different religions like mobile phone tariffs. An absolute nightmare to comprehend.

Kg and lbs or mph and km they are all the same. Human creations for stuff that don't exist. Man is the creator.

I do not have a problem with the labelling of the creator. If people believe in (a) God and that s/he is the creator, fine, I don't have a problem with it. My mum is a devout Christian and she would die if she read what I was writing. But my mum is absolute in her belief. There isn’t a doubt in her mind that there is a heaven and hell and she doesn’t believe in evolution and all this precious science nonsense. She isn’t sitting on the fence about the issue nor does she doubt her belief with every new breakthrough in science.

Then you have the likes of Richard Dawkins who are the other end of the spectrum. Basically, if there isn’t enough science now to convince you that there are no supreme beings then there never will be. Take people like Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake for his scientific ideas some 400 years ago. There were no computers, mobile phones or the internet and yet there was enough logic in his reasoning that he was prepared to die for it. What about Nicolaus Copernicus? Again, over 400 years ago there was enough science for him to question the religious notion that Earth is the centre of the universe. I suppose we will have to wait for more science to uncover all the places God might be hiding before everyone is convinced. But, as I said, if there isn’t enough science now, there never will be. And that's that.

 

[cofton]

That was a good, honest post new_trader.

Although you don't agree with your mom's views you show her respect and that's cool.

You also show science and Dawkins as much respect.

I particularly like ' if there isn’t enough science now to convince you that there are no supreme beings then there never will be' which is absolutely spot on.

Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree and keep the peace.

Be happy

Cofton

I do not have a problem with the labelling of the creator. If people believe in (a) God and that s/he is the creator, fine, I don't have a problem with it. My mum is a devout Christian and she would die if she read what I was writing. But my mum is absolute in her belief. There isn’t a doubt in her mind that there is a heaven and hell and she doesn’t believe in evolution and all this precious science nonsense. She isn’t sitting on the fence about the issue nor does she doubt her belief with every new breakthrough in science.

Then you have the likes of Richard Dawkins who are the other end of the spectrum. Basically, if there isn’t enough science now to convince you that there are no supreme beings then there never will be. Take people like Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake for his scientific ideas some 400 years ago. There were no computers, mobile phones or the internet and yet there was enough logic in his reasoning that he was prepared to die for it. What about Nicolaus Copernicus? Again, over 400 years ago there was enough science for him to question the religious notion that Earth is the centre of the universe. I suppose we will have to wait for more science to uncover all the places God might be hiding before everyone is convinced. But, as I said, if there isn’t enough science now, there never will be. And that's that.

 

[Atilla]

.. Basically, if there isn’t enough science now to convince you that there are no supreme beings then there never will be. ..

Which / what science explains

1. love, hate, sacrifice, laughter, tears, jealousy, joy + many other emotions?
2. human reaction to music & art
3. the soul, spirit of existence
4. depression, suicide

Science hasn't even scratched the surface of the brain let alone the heart and soul of humanity. You can treat man as much as you want like a physical carcass but that soul will keep raising it's head one way or another.

Would you be happier if it went along "Let us assume the creater is called Sigma?" sum of all things - creation and ending. If we exist - let us assume we are the middle. Hence, there must be a beginning and an end.

How is this logical reasoning any different to labelling the absence of anything - nothing = Zero because as we determined it is so useful along with kg or mph for our scientific purposes.

This is what bewilders me. WHAT IS IN EITHER OF THOSE EXPRESSIONS OR REASONING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

OK DON'T CALL IT GOD CALL IT WHAT EVER YOU WANT...


My point is simple.


If the ritual, history and errors of man in orchestrated religions gets your back up walk away.

BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS ABOUT THE CREATOR AND THE END?

As Mr Science you can ignore it, be aware of it or investigate it.

IF MAN PUTS A TOILET IN THE MIDDLE OF A GALLERY AND CALLS IT ART AND 000s GO TO VISIT THIS PIECE OF ART AND FEW PAY MILLIONS TO HAVE IT, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ACTIONS OF THESE HUMANLINGS. Get your scientific calculator out and explain this phenomena to me. WHY IS IT THAT I CAN'T STICK A TOILET IN ANOTHER GALLERY AND GET THE SAME ATTENTION OR MONEY?

Science might take you to the moon but as yet there is insufficient science to fullfill my senses in any meaningful way at all.

Some parents would die for their children and some parents kill and starve their toddlers to death. Some even torture them and break their backs. Get science to explain these mothers as physical entities to me. Evolution of the human race. Substandard specimens get rejected I suppose...


IF SCIENCE CAN NOT EXPLAIN THESE SUB-HUMANS HOW DO YOU EXPECT IT TO EXPLAIN SUPREME BEINGS.

The vanity of man in science. We are trully masters of our own destiny.

 

[dick_dastardly]

Dear DD,

You are braking my heart. Tell me in all sincerity, when you watch a Peter Pan film with any children or grandchildren you have, do you immediately put them straight?

No

Have you told any young children if they are good Santa (the coke-cola dude) will bring them toys.

Yes

Has anybody watched the Polar Express?

Not me

I would really hate it if all daddies were scientists and thought their children fact from fiction...

Valid point and well presented




I won't tell my kids there is no Father Christmas, they'll have to figure that out for themselves. However, if they haven't figured it out by the time they're 21 I think I might start dropping a few hints :cheesy:

Hang on a minute ! thinking about it :idea:, maybe not, it could be a good way of controling them.

Lets chill out a little guys. We are coming to that nice warm festive season... :clover:

Agree





YouTube - Indian Santa

The vanity of man in science. We are trully masters of our own destiny.

Seriously though Atilla, wouldn't you agree, for someone to believe in an afterlife simply because they can't imagine the universe carrying on without them

now that's vanity !


dd

 

[temptrader]

Which / what science explains

1. love, hate, sacrifice, laughter, tears, jealousy, joy + many other emotions?
2. human reaction to music & art
3. the soul, spirit of existence
4. depression, suicide

1, 2 and 3 are in their infancy, there is still a lot to do in the field, but science is actually working on it. It's just that things are a lot more complicated than previously thought. We sort of know the mechanism that makes people fall in love and it will surprise you - but that's another story.

3 is an unfalsifiable issue, along with the second point which is a philosophical issue

Science hasn't even scratched the surface of the brain let alone the heart and soul of humanity. You can treat man as much as you want like a physical carcass but that soul will keep raising it's head one way or another.

Right, so if science can't explain, then any fanciful crap that comes into people's heads will do? Am I right about that?

Would you be happier if it went along "Let us assume the creater is called Sigma?" sum of all things - creation and ending. If we exist - let us assume we are the middle. Hence, there must be a beginning and an end.

What is this? It's like if all we did in maths was work with 2 or 3 dimensions, or we worked with circles all our lives and when we look at the orbits of planets we assume they must follow a circular orbit because that all we "know". Your big, flawed assumption here is to assume that there is a "reason", or wanting to pry into a reason. Why? Why should the NEED for a reason imply the existence of a God?

How is this logical reasoning any different to labelling the absence of anything - nothing = Zero because as we determined it is so useful along with kg or mph for our scientific purposes.

This is what bewilders me. WHAT IS IN EITHER OF THOSE EXPRESSIONS OR REASONING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

How is it different? Zero is falsifiable. It NEEDS to be there in our counting system if it is to work. You CANNOT have the integers WITHOUT zero. Just as much as you can't weight things without a standardized unit of weight, or length or temperature.

You have no reasoning, you have fanciful feelings thinking that you have reasoning. And it's BS sorry to say.

OK DON'T CALL IT GOD CALL IT WHAT EVER YOU WANT...

I don't give a damn about God, yours or anyone else's - do you see or not see?

My point is simple.

If the ritual, history and errors of man in orchestrated religions gets your back up walk away.

BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS ABOUT THE CREATOR AND THE END?

Why do you need to ask such questions? In fact why the f*ck do you need to ask such questions? It's like you have a disease that makes you give a fixed response to anything you don't know - or never will know. There are no questions that remain. They are your personal questions, probably shared by others, but it was your choice to ask them. They aren't mine, because to me to ask them is absurd.

IF MAN PUTS A TOILET IN THE MIDDLE OF A GALLERY AND CALLS IT ART AND 000s GO TO VISIT THIS PIECE OF ART AND FEW PAY MILLIONS TO HAVE IT, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ACTIONS OF THESE HUMANLINGS. Get your scientific calculator out and explain this phenomena to me. WHY IS IT THAT I CAN'T STICK A TOILET IN ANOTHER GALLERY AND GET THE SAME ATTENTION OR MONEY?

This is nothing to do with science, it's everything to do with people's perception of value and what things are worth to certain people in whatever context it's based. Why bother even giving this example - it explains nothing. They may call it art, but I call it crap. But what would I know, I'm not one of the idiots willing to fork out over 100K for such a useless item.

Science might take you to the moon but as yet there is insufficient science to fullfill my senses in any meaningful way at all.

that's your own PERSONAL problem. Nothing to do with science. If the state of science causes people to believe in unobservable pink elephants in tutus dancing in their fridges when they close the door, well I'm afraid there's nothing that science can do about that

Some parents would die for their children and some parents kill and starve their toddlers to death. Some even torture them and break their backs. Get science to explain these mothers as physical entities to me. Evolution of the human race. Substandard specimens get rejected I suppose...

IF SCIENCE CAN NOT EXPLAIN THESE SUB-HUMANS HOW DO YOU EXPECT IT TO EXPLAIN SUPREME BEINGS.

You are asking for specific cases. I say so the f*ck what? Yes, there is a field in sociological science that looks into this and it's in its infancy, but we'll just be talking on endlessly about specific cases all the time. And you have the downright audacity to think science has all the answers? WHAT THE F*CK? If science had all the answers to all this, then what's the point of doing research? What's the point of having labs, or open debates? What would the point of it be?

I agree such nasty individuals are sub-human, but that's a label to attach to these individuals who we know exist because of their actions. As said previously, science is not here to explain God - that's just your misunderstanding.

The vanity of man in science. We are trully masters of our own destiny.

that is an arrogant statement. Science has NOT told you how to live your life. It might tell you not to eat mercury since it will poison you. It might tell you to be within a certain weight limit for your height or else you might run into physiological complications with blood circulation and metabolism etc. . .

Most scientists are very humble, in fact science is a very humble occupation. They conduct research because they don't know, and see if they can know MORE within the framework of logic, reasoning and evidence.

Your last statement is purely philosophical. . .

 

[new_trader]

I look outside my window and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none outside my window. I go outside and walk up and down my street and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my street. I walk every street in my suburb and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my suburb. I search every suburb in my city and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my city. I search every city in my country and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my country. I search every country on earth and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants. My conclusion is that tiny pink elephants do exist, but they are invisible. Until science can prove me wrong, this is what I shall believe because we don’t know one way or the other.

 

[Atilla]

I won't tell my kids there is no Father Christmas, they'll have to figure that out for themselves. However, if they haven't figured it out by the time they're 21 I think I might start dropping a few hints :cheesy:

I just asked my son (9) if he believed in Santa. He said NO! My duaghter (7) said she does and also expanded on the Elves - Santa's helpers to anybody who doesn't know. :clap:

Hang on a minute ! thinking about it :idea:, maybe not, it could be a good way of controling them.

Agree

YouTube - Indian Santa









Seriously though Atilla, wouldn't you agree, for someone to believe in an afterlife simply because they can't imagine the universe carrying on without them I honestly don' know?

now that's vanity !


dd

I would like know or find out though. I'm sure I will one day or not... :cheesy:

 

[searchlight]

I look outside my window and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none outside my window. I go outside and walk up and down my street and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my street. I walk every street in my suburb and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my suburb. I search every suburb in my city and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my city. I search every city in my country and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants but all I can say is that there are none in my country. I search every country on earth and I don’t find any tiny pink elephants. My conclusion is that tiny pink elephants do exist, but they are invisible. Until science can prove me wrong, this is what I shall believe because we don’t know one way or the other.

Good post n_t,

Problem is; you didn't walk in all those places (in faith) to expect to see one. If you did ; most probably you would have seen one. Not only that, it (tiny pink elephant) would have directly spoken to you . Giving you the unrefutable evidence of personal experience of its existence. Once you see them; they everywhere. They will appear on your window , sit on your shoulder, look over/after you. So next time you take a walk be aware...😀

 

[cofton]

New_trader - Why did you look for tiny pink elephants in the first place ?

Searchlight - Are you saying that if we all 'expect to see one' we will all see the tiny pink elephant ? Or is it just the chosen few ?

I have known people that believe in them totally but have never ever seen one, never had a prayer answered, never witnessed a miracle, never had a good life, suffered more than most people, in fact their lives have been blighted by unhappiness. Surely the tiny pink elephant would have helped people like this, especially as these unfortunate people totally believe in them.

Sorry I find it all very wrong. The tiny pink elephant is on a win/win situation, if something good happens then we all thank him, and if something bad happens then it is because you didn't believe in him or you didn't see him. Some believers in the pink elephant even blame mankind for all the bad things and thank him for all the good things.

The pink elephant's world sounds fantastic but it surely ain't real, no supreme being could possibly take all the glory for good things and blame someone else for all the sh*t that happens in this world.

Think I'll stick to reality thanks, far more comforting and less hassle on the brain.

Be happy

Cofton

Good post n_t,

Problem is; you didn't walk in all those places (in faith) to expect to see one. If you did ; most probably you would have seen one. Not only that, it (tiny pink elephant) would have directly spoken to you . Giving you the unrefutable evidence of personal experience of its existence. Once you see them; they everywhere. They will appear on your window , sit on your shoulder, look over/after you. So next time you take a walk be aware...😀

 

[temptrader]

New_trader - Why did you look for tiny pink elephants in the first place ?

Why he looks for pink elephants is not the point. The point that he cannot verify that they exist but still believe they do is. Do you see or not see?

In the same vein you could ask people why they believe in God - just as profoundly pointless as looking for pink elephants wouldn't you agree?

Searchlight - Are you saying that if we all 'expect to see one' we will all see the tiny pink elephant ? Or is it just the chosen few ?

Searchlight appears to be high on drugs. But what would I know? I've never taken drugs in my life to know what it's like.

I have known people that believe in them totally but have never ever seen one, never had a prayer answered, never witnessed a miracle, never had a good life, suffered more than most people, in fact their lives have been blighted by unhappiness. Surely the tiny pink elephant would have helped people like this, especially as these unfortunate people totally believe in them.

Here we go again!! All that was stated was the hunt for pink elephants. And now, surprise, surprise, you seem to infer that they should help people, that they are "good" or have other purposes. What on earth are you on? Don't tell me: strong medication prescribed by your therapist.

Sorry I find it all very wrong. The tiny pink elephant is on a win/win situation, if something good happens then we all thank him, and if something bad happens then it is because you didn't believe in him or you didn't see him. Some believers in the pink elephant even blame mankind for all the bad things and thank him for all the good things.

yet some more! How "good" and "evil" got inextricably linked to pink elephants is beyond me!!! Nothing has been said about the intentions of the pink elephants, about their diets, or behaviour patterns, or reproductive habits, or their intelligence etc. . . and yet you can't but help to project your own wants/needs into them - and fill in the gaps.

The pink elephant's world sounds fantastic but it surely ain't real, no supreme being could possibly take all the glory for good things and blame someone else for all the sh*t that happens in this world.

But you see they are real. Very REAL. Because the logic is "all because science can't prove their existence doesn't mean they don't exist". And please stop putting moralistic consequences into it. We are only interested in finding pink elephants, not if they are responsible for your neighbour's cat hating you . . .

 

[MrGecko]

The fact that you are discussing God in the first place means that he must exist... (Ontological Argument).

 

[searchlight]

Searchlight appears to be high on drugs. But what would I know? I've never taken drugs in my life to know what it's like.

. . .

''Religion is the opium of the masses'' Karl Marx
So if you wanna know, choose a religion. Any one of them will do. More fundamentalist you are, better the result will be. Good luck.😀

 

[Atilla]

1, 2 and 3 are in their infancy, there is still a lot to do in the field, but science is actually working on it. It's just that things are a lot more complicated than previously thought. We sort of know the mechanism that makes people fall in love and it will surprise you - but that's another story.

3 is an unfalsifiable issue, along with the second point which is a philosophical issue

I'm glad you recognise we need more science. 👍


Right, so if science can't explain, then any fanciful crap that comes into people's heads will do? Am I right about that? Well I'm not sure science lends it self to this kind of fanciful crap. This was pointed out to you before but YOU DON'T GET IT, do you? :cheesy:



What is this? It's like if all we did in maths was work with 2 or 3 dimensions, or we worked with circles all our lives and when we look at the orbits of planets we assume they must follow a circular orbit because that all we "know". Your big, flawed assumption here is to assume that there is a "reason", or wanting to pry into a reason. Why? Why should the NEED for a reason imply the existence of a God? Because man needs God. As has been pointed out number of times. Because man needs to believe in God. Way before organised main stream religions whether the Aztecs or the Egyptions there is a genuine need in man to know and find out. A quest perhaps?

This isn't me saying it, it's just man in aggregate wanting these answers.



How is it different? Zero is falsifiable. It NEEDS to be there in our counting system if it is to work. You CANNOT have the integers WITHOUT zero. Just as much as you can't weight things without a standardized unit of weight, or length or temperature.

You have no reasoning, you have fanciful feelings thinking that you have reasoning. And it's BS sorry to say. I have reason alright. Your BS head of yours fails to grasp the essence of faith - whether you agree with it or not. I'm puzzled as to how you can grasp kg, mph and even zero - the absence of everything and reject faith as BS. Your opinion fair enough by me. 🙂



I don't give a damn about God, yours or anyone else's - do you see or not see? Let's be civil as we are both blogging here along with the eyes of the world.



Why do you need to ask such questions? In fact why the f*ck do you need to ask such questions? It's like you have a disease that makes you give a fixed response to anything you don't know - or never will know. There are no questions that remain. They are your personal questions, probably shared by others, but it was your choice to ask them. They aren't mine, because to me to ask them is absurd. You've lost the plot. I'm entitled to ask what ever question I like. As this is www anybody is free to engage or dismiss discussions. YOU DON'T GET IT do you?



This is nothing to do with science, it's everything to do with people's perception of value and what things are worth to certain people in whatever context it's based. Why bother even giving this example - it explains nothing. They may call it art, but I call it crap. But what would I know, I'm not one of the idiots willing to fork out over 100K for such a useless item. Merely to point out science does not explain everything. BS is all around us. :cheesy:



that's your own PERSONAL problem. Nothing to do with science. If the state of science causes people to believe in unobservable pink elephants in tutus dancing in their fridges when they close the door, well I'm afraid there's nothing that science can do about that



You are asking for specific cases. I say so the f*ck what? Yes, there is a field in sociological science that looks into this and it's in its infancy, but we'll just be talking on endlessly about specific cases all the time. And you have the downright audacity to think science has all the answers? WHAT THE F*CK? If science had all the answers to all this, then what's the point of doing research? What's the point of having labs, or open debates? What would the point of it be? Simply making the point - like you we don't have all the answers. Evolution goes up the shoot in failing to explain it self. If you bring homosexuality into it - in the absence of medical assitance - humans can cease to exist.

There is a very real need to examine and scientifically study these behaviours and explain exactly what is going on here.

Look if you lack the mental intelligence to perservere you are always at liberty to go and play cards or something. Don't know why you are getting all worked up effing and blinding. Obviously you are upset but no need to be. 👍

I agree such nasty individuals are sub-human, but that's a label to attach to these individuals who we know exist because of their actions. As said previously, science is not here to explain God - that's just your misunderstanding. I was hoping Evolutionist would explain the abuse and murder of ones own children. I've never seen animals eat their own offspring to get more food. Perhaps others but not their own. Why do you always bring God into it?



that is an arrogant statement. Science has NOT told you how to live your life. It might tell you not to eat mercury since it will poison you. It might tell you to be within a certain weight limit for your height or else you might run into physiological complications with blood circulation and metabolism etc. . .

Most scientists are very humble, in fact science is a very humble occupation. They conduct research because they don't know, and see if they can know MORE within the framework of logic, reasoning and evidence.

Your last statement is purely philosophical. . .

My previous blog was to point out that there is not enough science at present to answer all questions. Philosophy, social studies and sciences all have a part to play.

I also raised some points that contradict the touted evolution theory as the creator of man via mutations or what ever.

To my mind there must surely be a creator.

I don't know and would like to know. Do I need to know. Well not really but curiousity still asks the question.

I am not a religious freak hell bent on the gospels or word of God.

I do feel there is more to life then the physical science.

Why can't you simply listen and take note instead of trying to rub ones face in the dust as to how stupid and ignorant we all are for asking basic elementary questions.

Simply ideas and thoughts. That's all. :idea:

Take what you want and discard anything of BS value behind you. :cheesy:

 

[cofton]

00

Why he looks for pink elephants is not the point. The point that he cannot verify that they exist but still believe they do is. Do you see or not see?

Yes of course I see and the fact that I understand this is the reason I ask why he is looking for the pink elephant in the first place. Do you not see?

In the same vein you could ask people why they believe in God - just as profoundly pointless as looking for pink elephants wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely which is why I used the metaphor in my original post

Here we go again!! All that was stated was the hunt for pink elephants. And now, surprise, surprise, you seem to infer that they should help people, that they are "good" or have other purposes. What on earth are you on? Don't tell me: strong medication prescribed by your therapist.

No Temptrader it is you on the medication, do you not see that I was speaking metaphorically, you know I am using a metaphor with pink elephant and/or god/religion ?? Not difficult really, well that is of course if you know what a metaphor is (yawn this is difficult...)

yet some more! How "good" and "evil" got inextricably linked to pink elephants is beyond me!!! Nothing has been said about the intentions of the pink elephants, about their diets, or behaviour patterns, or reproductive habits, or their intelligence etc. . . and yet you can't but help to project your own wants/needs into them - and fill in the gaps.

My, my temptrader you just don't understand metaphors do you 😆 Look, it's quite simple, the pink elephant is also being used as a supreme being and/or god/religion, how difficult is that to understand ??

Something like your comment 'In the same vein you could ask people why they believe in God - just as profoundly pointless as looking for pink elephants wouldn't you agree?'
Do you get it now ?


But you see they are real. Very REAL. Because the logic is "all because science can't prove their existence doesn't mean they don't exist". And please stop putting moralistic consequences into it. We are only interested in finding pink elephants, not if they are responsible for your neighbour's cat hating you . . .

No, I guess you still don't understand metaphors and how and why we use them. Not to worry, my post was obviously way above your head. And you asked me if I was on 'strong medication prescribed by your therapist...' ???

I think maybe you should reduce your medication dose and begin to learn basic comprehension before you enter a discussion 😛

 

[MrGecko]

I think this thread would go somewhere if you actually had something to discuss, with boundaries and distinctions, and with a purpose, rather than talking at crossed purposes and generally arguing for - what appears to be - the sake of it. IMO you would benefit from going away and reading what some rather more esteemed thinkers have pondered.

5 arguments for the existence of God:

Ontological
Cosmological
Teleological
the Moral Argument
Arguments from religious experience

Then, do your own bit of research. Some Authors you light like to try: Anselm, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Copleston, Russell, Hume, Vardy, Hick, Descartes, Plato + Aristotle, Moore, Satre (if you're brave), Ayer, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Mill, Bentham, Singer, Dawkins, et al. Not to say that you can't have - and express - your opinion without doing so, but you are certainly less likely to make progress in a discussion.

As for the namecalling; an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. Perhaps you all should work on fixing that before endevouring to discuss the exsistence of God.

 

[temptrader]

I'm glad you recognise we need more science.

And if science answered the questions it could answer for you, there will always be people who still want to believe in God . . . dear oh dear!

Because man needs God. As has been pointed out number of times. Because man needs to believe in God. Way before organised main stream religions whether the Aztecs or the Egyptions there is a genuine need in man to know and find out. A quest perhaps?

This isn't me saying it, it's just man in aggregate wanting these answers.

Man does NOT need God. In fact, for some strange reason, the thought of a God probably never occurred to him in prehistoric age because he was too busy trying to stay alive and evolving into the present state he is now.

Man does not need to believe in God. YOU need to believe in God, along with a few others. Me and a few others do NOT need to share your personal views. End of.

Out of interest what happens if science did prove that God existed, but that he just did the kick start of the process of existence (big bang etc . . ) and then he just b*ggered off/disappeared and NEVER intervened in any affairs again? Would you feel betrayed since you think of Him as "good" and "right" and he left you all in the lurch?

All because you ask questions it doesn't necessarily follow that you will get answers. Some questions do not concern science because it's not in science's repertoire to answer them, even though humanity has the utmost interest in finding the answers.

I have reason alright. Your BS head of yours fails to grasp the essence of faith - whether you agree with it or not. I'm puzzled as to how you can grasp kg, mph and even zero - the absence of everything and reject faith as BS. Your opinion fair enough by me

Faith is unfalsifiable - hence "BS" when subject to logic, evidence and reasoning. Like believing in pink elephants that defy observational attempts. But there's nothing to stop you in indulging. Man can live quite happily having NO faith in a higher power etc, and there are plenty on this earth who do not and choose not to.

And just for the record, I prefer hippos in tutus myself . .

You've lost the plot. I'm entitled to ask what ever question I like. As this is www anybody is free to engage or dismiss discussions. YOU DON'T GET IT do you?

They are YOUR questions. Get it? Not mine - or a vast majority of individuals who do not believe and do not care. They are not central to one's survival, nor a necessity, nor important. They are just yours, and a few others etc. . . etc .

Simply making the point - like you we don't have all the answers. Evolution goes up the shoot in failing to explain it self. If you bring homosexuality into it - in the absence of medical assitance - humans can cease to exist.

There is a very real need to examine and scientifically study these behaviours and explain exactly what is going on here.

Look if you lack the mental intelligence to perservere you are always at liberty to go and play cards or something. Don't know why you are getting all worked up effing and blinding. Obviously you are upset but no need to be.

We NEVER had all the answers!! (And I could argue on philosophical and psychological grounds that we NEVER WILL because it's the human condition.)

And now you interject an issue with evolution hoping for me to answer it for you? No, evolution did not shoot itself in the foot, and it does not need to explain itself. You haven't been doing enough thinking or homework about it to understand what it's about. Yes, if human's evolved into homosexuals we'll all cease to exist unless we have another reproduction mechanism. But who cares, species go extinct all the time, just another nature of Natural Selection . . .

I'm upset because you seem to think that science would answer everything and that they should answers YOUR questions. I'll say "b*gger off" and leave me in peace to work on what I'm working on, and if it happens to have any direct bearing on what you want to know, well you got to make the connection yourself.

I was hoping Evolutionist would explain the abuse and murder of ones own children. I've never seen animals eat their own offspring to get more food. Perhaps others but not their own. Why do you always bring God into it?

Wrong!!! Horribly wrong!!! There are animals who eat their own offspring, but I'll spare you the gory details. It has only been observed to happen in extreme circumstances so far. Funny enough some theorist predicted it would be so before observational evidence came about - a fact I find rather disturbing.

And why would you care for if "Evolutionist would explain the abuse and murder of ones own children"? You are not going to get answers you want to hear. In fact, come to think of it, the amounts of murder, doubt crossing, aggression, violence etc . . that are continually occurring in the the natural world would emotionally overwhelm most religious people to the point of questioning the existence of a "kind and loving" deity.

My previous blog was to point out that there is not enough science at present to answer all questions. Philosophy, social studies and sciences all have a part to play.

I also raised some points that contradict the touted evolution theory as the creator of man via mutations or what ever.

To my mind there must surely be a creator.

Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory about a process - nothing more. Whether a creator started it or not is nothing to do with the theory of evolution. You have not contradicted evolutionary theory.

"to my mind there must surely be a creator" is a statement of your own belief, just as spurious and valid as my belief in invisible dancing hippos. . .

 

[Atilla]

And if science answered the questions it could answer for you, there will always be people who still want to believe in God . . . dear oh dear!



Man does NOT need God. In fact, for some strange reason, the thought of a God probably never occurred to him in prehistoric age because he was too busy trying to stay alive and evolving into the present state he is now.

Man does not need to believe in God. YOU need to believe in God, along with a few others. Me and a few others do NOT need to share your personal views. End of.

Out of interest what happens if science did prove that God existed, but that he just did the kick start of the process of existence (big bang etc . . ) and then he just b*ggered off/disappeared and NEVER intervened in any affairs again? Would you feel betrayed since you think of Him as "good" and "right" and he left you all in the lurch?

All because you ask questions it doesn't necessarily follow that you will get answers. Some questions do not concern science because it's not in science's repertoire to answer them, even though humanity has the utmost interest in finding the answers.



Faith is unfalsifiable - hence "BS" when subject to logic, evidence and reasoning. Like believing in pink elephants that defy observational attempts. But there's nothing to stop you in indulging. Man can live quite happily having NO faith in a higher power etc, and there are plenty on this earth who do not and choose not to.

And just for the record, I prefer hippos in tutus myself . .



They are YOUR questions. Get it? Not mine - or a vast majority of individuals who do not believe and do not care. They are not central to one's survival, nor a necessity, nor important. They are just yours, and a few others etc. . . etc .



We NEVER had all the answers!! (And I could argue on philosophical and psychological grounds that we NEVER WILL because it's the human condition.)

And now you interject an issue with evolution hoping for me to answer it for you? No, evolution did not shoot itself in the foot, and it does not need to explain itself. You haven't been doing enough thinking or homework about it to understand what it's about. Yes, if human's evolved into homosexuals we'll all cease to exist unless we have another reproduction mechanism. But who cares, species go extinct all the time, just another nature of Natural Selection . . .

I'm upset because you seem to think that science would answer everything and that they should answers YOUR questions. I'll say "b*gger off" and leave me in peace to work on what I'm working on, and if it happens to have any direct bearing on what you want to know, well you got to make the connection yourself.



Wrong!!! Horribly wrong!!! There are animals who eat their own offspring, but I'll spare you the gory details. It has only been observed to happen in extreme circumstances so far. Funny enough some theorist predicted it would be so before observational evidence came about - a fact I find rather disturbing.

And why would you care for if "Evolutionist would explain the abuse and murder of ones own children"? You are not going to get answers you want to hear. In fact, come to think of it, the amounts of murder, doubt crossing, aggression, violence etc . . that are continually occurring in the the natural world would emotionally overwhelm most religious people to the point of questioning the existence of a "kind and loving" deity.



Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory about a process - nothing more. Whether a creator started it or not is nothing to do with the theory of evolution. You have not contradicted evolutionary theory.

"to my mind there must surely be a creator" is a statement of your own belief, just as spurious and valid as my belief in invisible dancing hippos. . .

Now I'm curious to find out what you are working on?

Can I help in anyway? I have a very creative imaginitive mind... :cheesy:

 

[PKFFW]

Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory about a process - nothing more. Whether a creator started it or not is nothing to do with the theory of evolution. You have not contradicted evolutionary theory.

Just couldn't help myself when I saw this gem.......

You have continually and repeatedly claimed throughout this thread the issue of the existence of God was "laid to rest in 1859(or whatever year)".

Now you are saying the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether a creator started it off or not.

Just more evidence you are arguing crap for the sake of arguing.

And while I'm at it........

I did not DENY God's or any faith's f*cking existence. I simply couldn't care less. What I do care about is when people take their beliefs, faith or what have you, and use that as "evidence".

I specifically said in my post regarding faith that faith does not provide evidence or proof. It is simply a choice one can make to accept something in the absence of proof or evidence. Yet you attacked that idea over and over.

Now you claim you couldn't care less and all you care about is people claiming faith is evidence.

Yet more BS from someone who is just arguing because he has nothing better to do with his life.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[MrGecko]

I couldn't help but notice some statements that are being used as premise for arguments that are simply false.

some thoughts to stimulate a fresh discussion...

Must God and Science be mutually exclusive?

Before you determine whether God exists or not, do you not think it an important task to define what God is in the first place? How can you know if you have found him otherwise?

Can God exist independently of Conscience?

 

[temptrader]

You have continually and repeatedly claimed throughout this thread the issue of the existence of God was "laid to rest in 1859(or whatever year)".

And you, Sir, have totally, and utterly got the WRONG end of the stick. Do you see that or not?

Let me repeat this again for the sake of people with very SHORT attention spans:

1) if such a religious claims to be the word of God, and what is in it is true because God says so
2) and further this religious text says that the earth is only 50,0000 or so years old, and man descended from Adam and Eve, and the earth was created in 7 days and 7 nights

now what happens if science FALSIFIES such claims made by this religious text? Why it's credibility is called into question. On his OWN judgment call, Darwin abandoned the faith that he was brought up with. He became an agnostic. Nowhere have we disproved the existence of God, or a God, or a group of Gods, or unobservable pink elephants, or invisible dancing hippos in tutus that appear when we are not looking.

I specifically said in my post regarding faith that faith does not provide evidence or proof. It is simply a choice one can make to accept something in the absence of proof or evidence. Yet you attacked that idea over and over.

Now you claim you couldn't care less and all you care about is people claiming faith is evidence.

Yet more BS from someone who is just arguing because he has nothing better to do with his life.

Mine was an emotional response in regards as to why ONE needs to believe in anything at all - by your definition of faith. I don't care in the sense that the question of having a faith or a God is absurd to me. Doesn't mean to say I'm right or wrong, it just means that I don't care personally. Just like you don't care about the existence of pink elephants, but I might - and it's equally just as absurd!!!