|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 8:01:10 GMT -5
No Zak -- just because you think they're equivalent doesn't make it so. If the exact nature of God is unknowable, you are unable to disprove anything about God. All you can do is argue the various nuances of particular religious systems. That's a whole other thing.
But really, as Lily pointed out, what do you hope to gain in this instance? People choose to believe or not on the basis of what is valid for them. In essence, Lily is far more correct in labeling the issue as having an emotional component.
That's why I specifically designated that I wished both believers and skeptics happiness relative to their own definition of validity. I never ask atheists to believe in God because it doesn't matter if they believe or not. God believes in them (or they wouldn't exist). I find that I don't wish to assume the burden of knowledge as to why this is the case -- whatever purpose disbelief serves in the mind of God is none of my business.
I don't have a problem with the concept of human limitations. In fact, I suspect they serve a purpose. As I've grown older, I've come to the realization that if "everything" was known -- the responsibility would be staggering. I have no desire apply for God's job and that's pretty much what you'd need to do to prove or disprove anything.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 21, 2014 10:50:54 GMT -5
Hey, you guys stop picking on poor Zak. 8-D
All the "holy days" in the northern hemisphere started off more or less the same because they were based on the seasons - winter solstice, spring equinox, etc. Over time, calendars and such have changed and some of the holy days drifted off their original times, but, regardless of the religion, the reason for the season IS the season. LOL.
I'm not sure about the younger folk, but among us oldies literally every person I have ever known who went to a Catholic school had tales of cruelty, torture, etc. I'd like to think that they have softened up a bit, but the old ones seemed to have seriously believed that it was necessary to beat the sin out of children, early and often. After all, what's a little physical pain compared to an eternity in hell, eh? 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 12:43:04 GMT -5
I don't know about you, Deb, but I am extremely impressed. These are totally new arguments for me and my head is just exploding with excitement. I've got to hand it to you guys. You've just converted a Christian. Do I get some certificate or something so I can say I'm now a card carrying atheist? Where do I sign up?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 13:10:37 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
Ah -- I'm too old to change. LOL! Whether it's the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Atheist Version of same, I think I'll just stay at my present level of blissful ignorance.
All kidding aside, I really wouldn't want the responsibility of knowing more than I think I do.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 13:16:15 GMT -5
Hi Fred!
You're right about that! Everyone I've ever known who went through the Catholic school system has some horror stories to tell.
My personal favorite is getting constantly beaten up for inquiring what happened to the Ark of the Covenant! When I was little, I couldn't comprehend how someone could lose (or misplace) something given to them BY GOD. That was the issue for me -- if GOD gives it to you -- how stupid can you be to lose it?? Anyhow, I'd constantly bug the Powers That Be to research the issue (because I was sure at the age of eight that somehow the answer was somewhere in a book) -- finally, their response was to beat me whenever I asked.
The amusing part of the story is that many years later, I received phone calls up the kazoo from people I knew in grammar school informing me that Indiana Jones had found it!!! LOL!! One guy told me that he was in the show and when it came on screen he couldn't stop laughing and his wife asked him what was the matter with him. He finally told her about a girl he knew who was obsessed with that ark!
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 14:25:04 GMT -5
Your thinking is muddled and befuddled. They aren't equivalent just because *I* think they are: they're equivalent because one is predicated on the other. You can't have a religion unless you have a god.
And before you can talk about "the exact nature of God", you have to first establish the existence of such an entity. Got proof that your God exists? If not, logic dictates an assumption of non-existence. That's how logical deduction works. And that's how science works.
If I told you I had a six-headed fire-breathing dragon in my attic would you believe me? Of course not. You'd be skeptical, and rightly so (or at least I hope you would). So my response to your skepticism - using your logic - would be: "If the exact nature of fire-breathing dragons is unknowable, you are unable to disprove anything about the dragon in my attic."
Surely you can see how silly and illogical an argument that is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 14:37:23 GMT -5
She doesn't HAVE TO do anything.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 14:53:16 GMT -5
Your thinking is muddled and befuddled. They aren't equivalent just because *I* think they are: they're equivalent because one is predicated on the other. You can't have a religion unless you have a god. And before you can talk about "the exact nature of God", you have to first establish the existence of such an entity. Got proof that your God exists? If not, logic dictates an assumption of non-existence. That's how logical deduction works. And that's how science works. If I told you I had a six-headed fire-breathing dragon in my attic would you believe me? Of course not. You'd be skeptical, and rightly so (or at least I hope you would). So my response to your skepticism - using your logic - would be: "If the exact nature of fire-breathing dragons is unknowable, you are unable to disprove anything about the dragon in my attic." Surely you can see how silly and illogical an argument that is? Dear Zak: Actually, from my point of view --your thinking is muddled and befuddled. They are not equivalent. One can't have a religion without a God. But what proof have you that God " needs" a religion to exist? Your "logic" depends on my accepting the validity of your initial premise. Which, I obviously don't. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 15:42:04 GMT -5
This is a completely meaningless and nonsensical statement. I don't think I have ever read a more nonsensical statement.
Again, it isn't *my* logic. It's logic as defined in the rational, scientific framework. You don't accept logic. That's fine. There's certainly no law requiring you to accept logic and rational thinking as the basis of your view of the world. In fact you are part of the majority. Most people are incapable of logical thinking. Hence the continuing popularity of nonsensical, myth-based religions.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 16:16:15 GMT -5
This is a completely meaningless and nonsensical statement. I don't think I have ever read a more nonsensical statement. Again, it isn't *my* logic. It's logic as defined in the rational, scientific framework. You don't accept logic. That's fine. There's certainly no law requiring you to accept logic and rational thinking as the basis of your view of the world. In fact you are part of the majority. Most people are incapable of logical thinking. Hence the continuing popularity of nonsensical, myth-based religions. Dear Zak: Nonsensical statement in your estimation because you know you know it's an indefensible position -- and yet, that's the one you've taken.. Rational scientific framework? Okay....let's take that apart, shall we? A believer says this and that happens because he/she sees something, hears something, feels something, and notes it. (experience based hypothesis) A skeptic calls this "anecdotal evidence". A scientist in a lab says this and that happens because he/she sees something, hears something, feels something and notes it. (experienced based hypothesis). A skeptic calls this "rational scientific framework". Both are based on observation of something by a human being. So really, all this controlled, repeatable stuff is called "factual" ON THE SCIENTISTS WORD that they're telling the truth. And they may or may not be (scientists have been known to fudge data). Are you going to claim that you were present at each and every experiment from the beginning of time to see that the data was accurately reported? Obviously not. So....it seems you are accepting "science' on.....wait for it.... FAITH Thus, I don't see a whole hell of a lot of difference between the two. Both are empirical hypothesis based on human observation. Where each of us chooses to place our faith is a matter of emotions (which, Lily has already pointed out). And I understand more about formal logic than you think. Unknowable is unknowable. All green horses are green. You can not prove or disprove something that isn't known, despite your desire to do so. As an aside, did you ever stop to wonder why it's so important to you to think you know "everything" ? Or why you'd want to even be in such a position if it were possible? I could almost picture you in that chamber of crystal skulls in the last Indiana Jones movie along with that Russian psychic (played by Cate Blanchett) crooning, "I want to know....I want to know....I want to know everything...." until you get yourself into deep doo-doo along with her. It's only a movie -- but I rather think that people who are that way just might end up getting themselves in way over their head. Your business of course, but I just thought I'd point out what to me, seems obvious. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 16:45:57 GMT -5
The reason you don't see a whole lot of difference between anecdotal evidence and scientifically tested evidence is because your grasp of the scientific method is hopelessly wrong and misinformed.
No, you have just proved, in your previous several posts, that you you have no idea at all of how "formal" or any other kind of logic works. Your ideas are all over the place. In a nutshell, the approach you subscribe to is one that scientists call "superstitious thinking".
I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you because - and no offense is intended - there is absolutely no logic in any of the statements you are making. I've had similar conversations with individuals while they've been having a severe bipolar episode. Your thinking is faulty. Your logic is faulty. Your assumptions are wrong. Your understanding of the scientific method is grossly misinformed. There really is no point discussing anything with someone whose thinking is so profoundly erroneous.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 16:59:29 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
You wish. Truth is -- I understand all too well that you have a need to feel that your position on God is "right". I don't know why this issue has such emotional weight with you. It's really not my business, so I'm not going to pry into your life.
By the way, I understand the scientific method. I've spent my fair share time in the lab. Got "A's". Thing is -- experimental results depended on WHAT I SAW and recorded. Unless you can think of a way to eliminate human perception in scientific experimentation, I'm afraid you're the one who isn't thinking clearly.
It is what it is.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 17:50:00 GMT -5
More baloney. I don't have a position on God, any more than I have a position on the Tooth Fairy, unicorns or any other imaginary entity.
Experimental results do not depend on what you see. They depend on other people being able to see the same thing. As I said, you don't understand how science works.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 18:40:55 GMT -5
More baloney. I don't have a position on God, any more than I have a position on the Tooth Fairy, unicorns or any other imaginary entity. Experimental results do not depend on what you see. They depend on other people being able to see the same thing. As I said, you don't understand how science works. Dear Zak: So let me see if I understand -- it depends on more than one person? So if we apply your concept of science to religion, then: In that case, the THREE children at Fatima or the SIX at Medjugoria certainly qualify. I'm merely pointing out here (once again) that you can't have it both ways. There are multitudes of believers who report observed religious experiences with identical elements. Not much different than a pack of scientists saying they saw this or that repeatedly. Believers could equally dig in their heels and suggest that scientists may be deluded about what they think they see in an experiment. It's a slippery slope when people start pointing fingers and claiming others are deluded. So far, you've presented nothing which can prove a scientist's observed experience is more valid than the observed experiences of anyone else. Science says "this or that" and everyone is supposed to be struck dumb with awe. Well if science says it -- it must be true! According to who? Scientists, of course! Circular thinking at its finest! Science is often wrong. And science often evolves over time. So tell me do you know any scientist stupid enough to claim "everything" is presently known? -- Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Gifthorse on Apr 21, 2014 18:43:27 GMT -5
Hope everyone had a happy holiday...whatever you celebrate. We had my parents over for lunch, Q got a basket filled with chocolate eggs, chocolate bunny and a DVD of the second Hobbit film which he'd wanted. Then we watched a Horatio Hornblower episode and the film "The Impossible", which I highly recommend. Regarding the name Easter: I'd always heard it came from the name Ēostre or Ostara which was a Germanic goddess of fertility. Just checked out the Religious Tolerance website and it looks like there are multiple pagan options... Pagan Origins of Easterexcerpt: "Origins of the name "Easter":
The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE), a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." 1 Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." " Happy Whatever!
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 18:53:09 GMT -5
Yes, I also think this is the correct origin of the word Easter. Of course there was a certain amount of "cross fertilization" of these ancient pagan religions. What is certain, though, is that Easter predates Christianity by hundreds if not thousands of years. And it was originally a pagan festival associated with sex and fertility.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 19:01:36 GMT -5
Deb -
I'm not discussing this with you any further. Your ideas are ridiculous. Now you're actually equating the uncorroborated claims of three imaginative children with peer-reviewed observations and measurements of repeatable phenomena made by trained scientists. I don't want to be rude, but you're talking through your - let's say hat.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 20:31:28 GMT -5
Deb - I'm not discussing this with you any further. Your ideas are ridiculous. Now you're actually equating the uncorroborated claims of three imaginative children with peer-reviewed observations and measurements of repeatable phenomena made by trained scientists. I don't want to be rude, but you're talking through your - let's say hat. Dear Zak: "That there book learnin'" (pronounced with a heavy Southern twang for maximum effect) is not the same as wisdom. Whatever makes you think it is? I wouldn't put all my faith in "dem dere fancy white coats" if I were you -- nor, would I automatically dismiss someone's observations due to age prejudice. Children haven't had time to develop massive egos. In fact, that only begins when adults begin to promote such concepts. I put to you that scientists have a greater reason to prevaricate in regard to their observations than children. Grant money, anyone? On another note: How would you propose to measure God in the first place, when you can't know the unknowable? --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 21, 2014 21:04:02 GMT -5
Again, your logic is fundamentally flawed. The fact that you don't know something is not grounds for assuming that that thing exists, or might exist. Science proceeds on the principle of lex parsimoniae - ie, where there are competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily". Belief in God multiplies hypotheses to the Nth degree. It assumes the existence of an entity in the complete absence of even a shred of evidence supporting its existence. So the answer to your question is that I would not "propose to measure God", since all the available evidence points to God being an entirely man-made, imaginary entity with no basis in objective reality. God is essentially a more elaborate version of Santa Claus.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Apr 21, 2014 21:31:52 GMT -5
Well, *my* logic tells me that a "God" or "deity" or whatever you want to call it is not very probable....but when I try to put logic to how all things work so perfectly, how complex everything is, how every once in a while the unexplainable just happens...and let us not forget my *penny* story..(if you have forgotten already I will gladly tell you again)...well, THEN my logic kicks in and says there HAS to be something. We didn't just *happen* and to think that we did, I believe, is illogical.
I believe Jesus was a person. I believe at the very worst case, that if he really wasn't the son of God that he really did believe he was...and I believe he may have been. I guess we'll all find out now won't we.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 21:43:33 GMT -5
Dear Zak: The problem is that you seem to think God has to reveal Himself to science (on cue) in order to exist. This is Shamu. Now Shamu will gladly do whatever you wish for some herring. Do you honestly believe that the Lord of the Universe is going to perform like a trained show animal? That doesn't mean He doesn't exist. It means He is God. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Apr 21, 2014 21:51:51 GMT -5
I also believe there is plenty of evidence of God...it's all around you. I'm getting on a plane tomorrow and that's partially the reason. I liken standing next to the ocean to standing next to God. That's what it feels like to me and when I'm there I have no desire at all to try and explain that feeling with logic. It just is. It's just there.
|
|
|
Post by Gifthorse on Apr 21, 2014 21:59:14 GMT -5
Yes, I also think this is the correct origin of the word Easter. Of course there was a certain amount of "cross fertilization" of these ancient pagan religions. What is certain, though, is that Easter predates Christianity by hundreds if not thousands of years. And it was originally a pagan festival associated with sex and fertility. Agreed. No religion was ever created in a vacuum. All aspects of society and belief-systems evolve over time.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 22:00:55 GMT -5
Dear Tricia:
I understand completely what you're saying. And I think most believers would agree.
I don't get why Zak feels God owes anyone a command performance.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 22:23:07 GMT -5
If I'm remembering correctly (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wroing) Zak believes or at least conjectures that our universe either is or has consciousness. He's also not satisfied with knowing about the Big Bang, but desires to know what there was before the Big Bang. And believes that impressions can be picked up from people or objects if one has psychic abilities. I don't see why these things should be any less diffiicult to believe or want to know than the existence of a supreme being. Certainly these things are not everyday norms. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 21, 2014 23:06:16 GMT -5
I also believe there is plenty of evidence of God...it's all around you. I'm getting on a plane tomorrow and that's partially the reason. I liken standing next to the ocean to standing next to God. That's what it feels like to me and when I'm there I have no desire at all to try and explain that feeling with logic. It just is. It's just there. Evidence of god is all around me? Like what, please? Because I don't see it. I can stand on the beach, or at the edge of the Grand Canyon, or next to Niagara Falls and be absolutely awestruck. I don't try to explain it logically. I just live in the moment, my heart and mind (so to speak) open to the experience. Yes, "it just is. It's just there." But I have never noticed god there..
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 21, 2014 23:12:15 GMT -5
Dear Raybar:
Truly, this question is sincere.
Would you recognize God? Even if He was "all around you" -- would your lack of belief color the experience such that even if He was there -- you wouldn't notice?
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 23:21:17 GMT -5
And you were looking real hard, too, weren't you?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 21, 2014 23:54:55 GMT -5
I didn't start life as a skeptic or an atheist. I did look for god. I looked really hard. I found nothing.
Would god go unnoticed when he was all around me because I don't believe? I hope not and I don't think so. I really do try to be open in mind and heart, but what I get is a sense of awe and wonder, that I'm part of it, that I'm "one with the universe." I do not get any sense that god is present.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 23:58:29 GMT -5
Do you really think that people of faith stand around and say "Look, there's God sitting there" ? "Or where is God today? He must have stayed in bed." It isn't called faith for no reason.
|
|