259 replies to this topic

[brokenportal]

Stephen, Sorry about the idiot thing, that kind of came out wrong. I just mean that from what we know now, the god idea is really illogical, and that promoting it as though it were true is not, well, logical.

Anyways, If you think we all have almost a complete ignorance of the world around us, which I would agree with, then why do you "beleive" in god?


If you have almost a complete ignorance, lets call it 99% ignorance for the sake of numbers, then how could you possibly hope to 'know' that god exists?

Lets say for the sake of it that you actually knew so much that you knew an astounding 50% about everything in the universe. How could you even hope to know in that circumstance, that reasoning that negates your perception that god is real, isnt there in the other 50% of the stuff you dont know about?

We just dont know. We should all admit that we dont know and keep looking with an open mind to all the options. Thats what I think. I think that agnostisism is extremely underused and completely appropriate.

[Aegist]

just as my point was above, how does our ignorance really stand for an argument of anything? Other than, of course, the fact that we can't know anything...

I don't claim to know that there is no afterlife, or that there is no God...I claim that I do not believe it to be the case. I claim that of all the evidence I have available, none of it supports that hypothesis. Get as airy fairy philosophical as you want, but in the end we have to actually live our lives, and we have to deal with what we have, and you can't avoid the fact that what we have, indicates the non-existence of a God entity.

[struct]

just as my point was above, how does our ignorance really stand for an argument of anything?

Maybe not ours but stephen's stands. Let say stephen is ignorant, which is not a wild guess afterall. His argument starts in a pile of garbage somewhere in Iraq and a US soldier standing next to it. Having a pile of garbage and a US soldier it's not enough for an argument, but wait! Inside that pile of garbage stephen puts a bomb (not literally, since a bomb in stephen's hands wouldn't have lasted long), an IED he calles it. On top of that you have the fact that humans don't have X-ray vision to see through garbage. If this does not do for an argument what does then!?

[stephenszpak]

just as my point was above, how does our ignorance really stand for an argument of anything?

Maybe not ours but stephen's stands. Let say stephen is ignorant, which is not a wild guess afterall. His argument starts in a pile of garbage somewhere in Iraq and a US soldier standing next to it. Having a pile of garbage and a US soldier it's not enough for an argument, but wait! Inside that pile of garbage stephen puts a bomb (not literally, since a bomb in stephen's hands wouldn't have lasted long), an IED he calles it. On top of that you have the fact that humans don't have X-ray vision to see through garbage. If this does not do for an argument what does then!?

http://en.wikipedia....xplosive_device

I don't get it struct. I assumed everyone knows they know very little
about the unknown dangers of being in mortal bodies. Maybe it's one of
those "the sky is blue" things. Too obvious to talk about.

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

brokenportal

Forget about it. I get exasperated here too.

========================================

brokenportal wrote>... how could you possibly hope to 'know' that god exists?

Stephen wrote> To you, I would say, give it a shot. Talk to God on the assumption
that He is listening and cares about you. Use your own words.
Explain to Him that even if He exists, that you can't imagine
any way He could reveal Himself to you. Find a quiet place
and just talk. He might move in your life soon or someday.
I don't know.

-Stephen

[struct]

I'll rephrase the story:

Stephen's argument starts in a pile of garbage somewhere in Iraq and a US soldier standing next to it (have some Persian music in the background or in the back of your head for enhancement). Having a pile of garbage and a US soldier it's not enough for an argument, but wait! Inside that pile of garbage there is a bomb or possibly a sucide bomber holding the bomb, an IED he calles it. The soldier unfortunately does not have X-ray vision to see through garbage even though he is close to the pile; he wished those garbage were all made of glass so that he could have a glimse of the sucide bomber and his bomb. There is nothing the the sucide bomber or the soldier could have done about this situation to save their lives. The soldier is too damn close to the pile of garbage and the sucide bomber has no choice but blow himself, the pile of garbage, and the soldier next to it. How would they avoided this I have no idea?

[struct]

To you, I would say, give it a shot. Talk to God on the assumption
                        that He is listening and cares about you. Use your own words.
                        Explain to Him that even if He exists, that you can't imagine
                        any way He could reveal Himself to you. Find a quiet place
                        and just talk. He might move in your life soon or someday.
                        I don't know.

If you don't know why are you giving instructions to brokenportal? I guess you don't know this either.

[stephenszpak]

struct wrote> If you don't know why are you giving instructions to brokenportal? I guess you don't know this either.


Stephen wrote>

http://www.imminst.o...60

[stephenszpak]

I'll rephrase the story:

Stephen's argument starts in a pile of garbage somewhere in Iraq and a US soldier standing next to it (have some Persian music in the background or in the back of your head for enhancement). Having a pile of garbage and a US soldier it's not enough for an argument, but wait! Inside that pile of garbage there is a bomb or possibly a sucide bomber holding the bomb, an IED he calles it. The soldier unfortunately does not have X-ray vision to see through garbage even though he is close to the pile; he wished those garbage were all made of glass so that he could have a glimse of the sucide bomber and his bomb.  There is nothing the the sucide bomber or the soldier could have done about this situation to save their lives. The soldier is too damn close to the pile of garbage and the sucide bomber has no choice but blow himself, the pile of garbage, and the soldier next to it.  How would they avoided this I have no idea?

(An IED does not involve a suicide bomber.)

struct, we avoid/deal with dangers in this life as we perceive them. We can
not perceive every danger, nor can we even be awake 24 hours a day
to try to.

[struct]

(An IED does not involve a suicide bomber.)

Sorry about that! Maybe if you buy 12 IED's you get the suicide bomber as a bonus.
OK then let me reconstruct my story:

We have a pile of garbage somewhere in a remote village in Iraq, an US soldier standing next to it (probably doing some inspections to the garbage), an IED inside the pile of garbage, and a remote control in the hands of a bomber (not a sucide bomber). The bomber presses the button. There goes the pile of garbage and the US soldier. BOOOM!!
Next day the US Army blows up the village. Booom!!Booom!!Booom!!Booom!!Booom!!Booom!!Booom!!, etc.
Many more piles of garbage are created, many more IED's are implanted to the piles, and many more soldiers inspecting the garbage. What do you say to this Stephen, hh?

[Aegist]

Struct, cut it out please, you aren't helping the discussion (what is left of it).

Stephen, I still don't see your point... we know virtually nothing in the big scheme of things. Right. Got it. How is that an argument for anything? Your point is super-moot.

[stephenszpak]

Struct, cut it out please, you aren't helping the discussion (what is left of it).

Stephen, I still don't see your point... we know virtually nothing in the big scheme of things. Right. Got it. How is that an argument for anything? Your point is super-moot.

Aegist

It all started with wing_girl

wing_girl wrote>

I'm a cryonicist, so if any god ever turns out to be real--well I'll do good for them when I have some proof of their existence, until then I'm with science and what we can deduct as being 'real'

Stephen wrote>

One of the posts that sort of addressed this was here:

http://www.imminst.o...80

Hey, if things have slowed down, that's fine. I may have little time
to post anyway for the next few days.

-Stephen

[Aegist]

But still..so what? Life is dangerous, we know nothing, congratulations you have graduated to 'real life'. learn to deal with it, or just end it now, in the end it's all the same.

I'm still trying to figure out what argument you are really proposing here. How does this argue for belief in God, or Gods existence, or falsity of evolution, or truth in creationism/ID?

[stephenszpak]

Aegist

Many here, and in the general population, don't believe the spiritual realm exists.
They believe the physical realm exists only. I can understand that. But yet they
don't know enough about the physical realm to know if they are in imminent danger
of leaving it or not. (If one believes one has a soul or not, you still leave your life here
upon the Earth when you die.)

5 minutes before the first plane hit one of the Twin Towers, everyone there felt
completely safe. But the human guided missile, which was the first plane, was almost
there.

I think, that to believe the physical realm only exists, with 100% conviction, and yet to understand
so little about it, is incongruous.

-Stephen

[Aegist]

OK, we're just dealing with a non-sequitor. lack of knowledge about the real world does not mean there must be a spiritual world. It doesn't even suggest there might be one. They are two totally unrelated issues. Competely. Absolute in their non-relatedness.

If belief in a spiritual realm makes you feel safer (because you could die at any moment, lucky you ahve that great big safet net called heaven), then fine. They can be connected in that sense in your mind, but that is an emotional attachment, not a logical consequence. There is no logical connection between the two concepts.


As for conviction that only a physical realm exists, so far all of the evidence collected still only goes so far as the physical. Even if there was something beyond that (whatever that really means, assuming you are talking about outside space/time/energy), it would seem it bears precisely zero relevence to us. So our limited knowledge about the physical is hardly a problem when it then comes to preuming there must be more than the physical, because they are, once again, completely unrelated topic.

[brokenportal]

just as my point was above, how does our ignorance really stand for an argument of anything? Other than, of course, the fact that we can't know anything...

I don't claim to know that there is no afterlife, or that there is no God...I claim that I do not believe it to be the case. I claim that of all the evidence I have available, none of it supports that hypothesis. Get as airy fairy philosophical as you want, but in the end we have to actually live our lives, and we have to deal with what we have, and you can't avoid the fact that what we have, indicates the non-existence of a God entity.

Im kind of confused. As for ignorance and creationists saying since we dont know then we should except the bible since it says it knows, I can see why you say that ignorance doesnt hold that argument up. As for our ignorance lending credence to the idea that we should keep all options open, I think thats really reasonable. You are as you say led to beleive one thing or the other, as we all are, but that doesnt make our extreme ignorance of the over all picture any less debilitating does it? Maybe, Im not sure, show me why if so.

It reminds me of mystery shows. You think you know the answers all the way to the end, and may even be convinced so, but you really dont know. Ide put the questions of the universe on the level of an extremely well written twisting dramatic in the dark keeping type of mystery show. I definetly agree that for all practical purposes we have to go with leads that are compelling. Its just that in the process I would be sure to not hide the fact that in all reality, all the options are still on the table.

Rather than having discussions where people are saying things like, "yes well god is true of course, go talk to him," or, "evolution is definently well on its way to being shown to be true," we would be able to report in with each other and be like, "ya, Im still on that creation (or evolution) track, heres what Ive discovered to further its theory." and so on.

Im not saying this is right, but thats what I can see of it all.

[subjunk]

Professional heavyweight fights are basically two fools beating each others brains out for a large sum of money.

I disagree, a lot of pro fighters are very intelligent. People who think it's easy and doesn't require a tremendous amount of thinking have never tried it. If you had tried it you would realise to get to the top you must be intelligent.

[subjunk]

The same goes for the point Aegist made about the statistics on prisoners in correctional facilities showing large numbers to be religious. I know this to be absolutely false. Those prisoners, for the most part, are atheist wolves in sheep's clothing from my experience. They take on the cloak of religion in order to survive their situation and as a tool to manipulate others to their own advantage as a part of an antisocial agenda. Statistics are very misleading when it comes to to how people really feel and act as opposed to what they say when they fill out the form used as a basis for the statistic. People can be very deceptive - even deceiving themselves at times.

That really says something about the way religion has screwed up our society.
The fact that the vast majority of people in prison claim to be Christian even though they aren't for personal gain and respect just shows the extent to which major religions make people ignorent and sheep-like.

[subjunk]

Yes, this style of arguing is MUCH better than quoting the bible, however your point isn't as effective as you obviously hoped it would be.

1. This isn't about 'bible based moral knowledge', because my very point here is that 'bible based morals' are the worst moral measurement available...

and 2. I'm not trying to state that there is a caustation. I was observing the correlation. It is irrelevent whether stupidity causes people to believe in the bible, or whether believing in the bible causes people to be stupid, that is irrelevent, all that matters is that as a trend, the stupider you are, the more religious you are. The correlation is the point.

And to be quite honest, i think the causation is a bit from column A and a bit from column B. You gotta be a little Dim to swallow it in the first place (which is why they like to start at a young age, before experience and wisdom can teach the innocent child otherwise), and then once you are religious, you have been so thoroughly brain washed into believeing stuff based on 'faith' that evidence becomes meaningless, and you lose all critical thought faculties... That way you are less likely to actual take in new knowledge.

So, while the cuasatory direction is irrelevent to the point, I think it is interesting to speculate that it probably bi-directional.

Ohhh burrrrn

[william7]

Professional heavyweight fights are basically two fools beating each others brains out for a large sum of money.

I disagree, a lot of pro fighters are very intelligent. People who think it's easy and doesn't require a tremendous amount of thinking have never tried it. If you had tried it you would realise to get to the top you must be intelligent.

I've never heard of any intellectuals or academic types who've participated in professional or semi-professional boxing. I don't follow the sport, however. I read somewhere that boxers are at great risk for brain damage or trauma of some sort.

From my understanding, it's mostly people with a lot of pent up anger and aggression that do well at boxing. I think it probably takes more cunning than anything else.

I renounced violence in the late 1980s and I now try to avoid physical conflicts at all costs.

[william7]

That really says something about the way religion has screwed up our society.
The fact that the vast majority of people in prison claim to be Christian even though they aren't for personal gain and respect just shows the extent to which major religions make people ignorent and sheep-like.

Those prisoners professing religion are usually in Muslim gangs or white supremacist gangs. They pretty much twist the teachings of their religious textbooks to support their activities. They will also talk the talk but not walk the walk. The Bible should not be condemned as a result of the actions of the false teachers who've refused to abide by its teachings.

Checkout the report prepared by National Gang Crime Research Center, at http://www.ngcrc.com/corr2006.html. They have a section dealing with religious gangs misusing the law designed to protect prisoners religious rights. Not all prisoners lawsuits over religious matters are frivolous, but many are.

Addendum: Scientists and philosophers also shouldn't judge the Bible harshly as a result of the inaccurate or false teachings of creationists either. Just like knowledge is evolving in science, knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures is evolving too.

Edited by elijah3, 16 March 2007 - 09:48 PM.

[Aegist]

They pretty much twist the teachings of their religious textbooks to support their activities. 

...just like everybody else throughout human history? What do you think the bible and religion in general has been primarily used for?

Addendum: Scientists and philosophers also shouldn't judge the Bible harshly as a result of the inaccurate or false teachings of creationists either. Just like knowledge is evolving in science,  knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures is evolving too.

Actually, I judge religion entirely by the people who represent it, because thats all religion is, a human construct. Remove the people, and there is no religion.

[subjunk]

Professional heavyweight fights are basically two fools beating each others brains out for a large sum of money.

I disagree, a lot of pro fighters are very intelligent. People who think it's easy and doesn't require a tremendous amount of thinking have never tried it. If you had tried it you would realise to get to the top you must be intelligent.

I've never heard of any intellectuals or academic types who've participated in professional or semi-professional boxing. I don't follow the sport, however. I read somewhere that boxers are at great risk for brain damage or trauma of some sort.

From my understanding, it's mostly people with a lot of pent up anger and aggression that do well at boxing. I think it probably takes more cunning than anything else.

I renounced violence in the late 1980s and I now try to avoid physical conflicts at all costs.

Certainly it is rare to find academic types in professional martial arts, because martial arts take so much dedication to become good. But a lot of the top guys have the obvious intelligence that would allow them to be academics if they tried.

When stupid but big people enter the pro bouts they often have a few wins until they come up against a smart fighter who has had time to study them.
A perfect example is Bob Sapp. Huge guy, 6'5", over 150kg of pure muscle. He entered the K1 circuit and initially did really well because of strength, but he didn't have the intelligence to evolve with the game so his K1 career was ended after much smaller people just started beating him too easily using their superior technique.

Martial arts is like speed chess at the pro level. I don't really count boxing here, but arts like jitsu, kempo, kung fu, wrestling, all the best fighters plan moves well in advance.
Fighters like Frank Mir, Randy Couture, those guys have the ability to beat anyone at any size because of their brains.

Also I definitely don't see martial arts as "violence", at least not any more so than any other contact sport like rugby or football.
I realise you aren't into that sort of thing so maybe you won't agree, and I know there is the stereotype of big stupid boxer, but trust me (as someone who is intelligent and into martial arts) there is more to it than getting angry. In fact anger is your worst enemy in the ring, it is the calm, collected guys who go the distance. Angry guys get famous quickly because they're entertaining to watch, but rarely last long enough for title fights.

[JohnDoe1234]

Addendum: Scientists and philosophers also shouldn't judge the Bible harshly as a result of the inaccurate or false teachings of creationists either. Just like knowledge is evolving in science, knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures is evolving too.

If you met a scientist who made amazing claims, and never once produced a shred of evidence to support his claims, would you not judge him/her harshly? It goes both ways man... except, we tend to offer proof.

Also, god sure does seem careless, he creates the universe, the milkyway galaxy, our solar system, earth, and our species... but he only remembers to tell a select few, and makes the book so friggin' cryptic that people can't figure it out on the first pass?

Elijah, how does this make any sense?

[struct]

Just like knowledge is evolving in science,  knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures is evolving too.

Wouldn't this, what you say, make your current knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures handicapped or even worthless relative to the true meaning of the Scriptures? If so, what makes you thing you are in the 'right' direction? Or is it that only the understanding of some parts is evolving but not the others?

[dimasok]

From my understanding, it's mostly people with a lot of pent up anger and aggression that do well at boxing. I think it probably takes more cunning than anything else.

Tyson anyone? The guy was one of the greatest (i'd say THE greatest) pugilist ever but one look at this eyes and you could see a killers reflexes waiting to jump out at the their victim (ears anyone? )

[william7]

Actually, I judge religion entirely by the people who represent it, because thats all religion is, a human construct. Remove the people, and there is no religion.

I bet you can't tell your fiance and her family that. They'll tell you that God is the author of the Scriptures and His Holy Spirit teaches sincere believers what is necessary to know.

If you plan to marry a believer, I'm fairly certain you'll eventually be one too.

[william7]

Subjunk, you jumped from professional boxing to the martial arts on me. I don't think martial artists beat each others brains out and put themselves at serious risk of brain damage in the same way as boxers do. I think most of them are more into honing their skills rather than displaying them in competition. I could be wrong though.

[Aegist]

Actually, I judge religion entirely by the people who represent it, because thats all religion is, a human construct. Remove the people, and there is no religion.

I bet you can't tell your fiance and her family that. They'll tell you that God is the author of the Scriptures and His Holy Spirit teaches sincere believers what is necessary to know.

If you plan to marry a believer, I'm fairly certain you'll eventually be one too.

Um, actually I don't know that they do believe that the Holy Spirit teaches sincere believers... I think they believe the Bible is the word of God, and it is up to people to educate themselves. God's power has nothing to do with it (The holy spirit being the power of God, not some wierd third entity of a polytheistic religion) (Btw, they also believe Jesus is God's son, NOT God himself.)

But anyway, no, I won't be becoming a believe anytime soon without the evidence, and after much questing, the evidence presented is entirely dependent upon 2 prophecies, and I find neither of them compelling at all. They are both just like all other propehecies imo. Arbitrarily assigned to something which seems to fit the facts, at the expense of all other possible fits.

[william7]

If you met a scientist who made amazing claims, and never once produced a shred of evidence to support his claims, would you not judge him/her harshly? It goes both ways man... except, we tend to offer proof.

Also, god sure does seem careless, he creates the universe, the milkyway galaxy, our solar system, earth, and our species... but he only remembers to tell a select few, and makes the book so friggin' cryptic that people can't figure it out on the first pass?

Elijah, how does this make any sense?

God offers proof of His existence in a way that science is not capable of comprehending. Science may put a limitation on your perspective of life if your not careful. The most important things in life are not going to be discovered in the scientist's laboratory.

Like any worthwhile branch of knowledge, you have to research and study it. The Bible is know different. If you seriously meditate on God's perfect ways and put them into practice, you'll be rewarded. Psalm 1:2; 77:12; Matthew 4:4; James 1:22-25.

Like the bread mentioned in Matthew 4:4 above, you cannot live on science alone. History and our current situation is proof of this.