Faith and Reason

POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 04:36
VIEWED: 7253
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
its easy for us, in the 21st century, with the luxury of all of our modern advances..to set back and play arm-chair quarterback, and denegrate people who existed thousands of years before our own existence.. and say that they were dillusional, ignorant savages with no understanding of our origins; is that what you all are saying? cause im not willing to go that far.. and thank God their are still some impartial scientists and knowledge seekers who are willing to investigate what is actually known about our earliest origins

So your argument is:
Because we have more scientific knowledge now than we did then we know less because I don't like the current scientific explination. Wow, that's even less logical than the ussual fundementalist arguments.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

TPAGE

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:35 PM

What's all this about a scienitific dictatorship? I don't see the world governments as basing their power on science, though they do use science.

Science is used simply because it tends to answer many more questions about our current state than religion. Ex. water quality just cannot be answered by religion, thus the government uses science when determining environmental laws, &c.

Instead of basing government on religion, which in essence is simply another idea, they base their power on other ideas. A prominent idea in the U.S.A. is captialism. However, in this 'new' system, the opinion of the people may change and thus the ideas the governments are based on much change or be replaced by another government.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 7:35 PM

Quote:
what is the evidence that supports the God delusion? i assume God, and the concept of such a deity, is the root cause of every evil the world has ever known.

I think you're the only person here saying that.

Quote:
that seems to be the general attitude of athiests i meet; that the world religions are to blame for everything

I'm an atheist, I suppose that you've "met" me electronically, and that's not what I think.

Quote:
basically that Darwinism is proven 100% verifiable.

That's not how science works. It is impossible to 100% verify a hypothesis. It is, OTOH, relatively easy to disprove one, or at least parts of one. So far, nothing has turned up to disprove Darwin's hypothesis since the "evidence" to do so has turned out to be either fabricated or misinterpreted

Quote:
scientism, adopted as a new worldview, would more successfully bring upon global peace?

Not unless we extend our scientific endeavors to understand and accomdate the one thing that causes most of our problems- ourselves.

Quote:
Darwinism is a clever repackaging of freemasonic, occult theology

yada yada.

Anti- As you like to say, people are imperfect. If you take a look at any group of people on any dimension that you care to name you will find that they occupy a distribution. Even behavioral traits are distributed: shyness, attention span, irritability, empathy etc. Some people who are born with no sense of guilt- these are true sociopaths. Others have a really short fuse, lowered IQ and poor impulse control. Others are abused into criminal behavior. Since my daughter had a stroke when she was born and I deal with her behaviors and the behaviors of her friends and classmates, I can give you a boringly long list how the physical affects the behavioral, metnal, and even "spiritual". This is the source of individual evil.

But there is institutional evil as well. One thing I find in all societies of any size is the tendency for power to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands, leading to complere corruption at teh top and misery at the bottom. Strangely, it is the tendency of most people to avoid confrontation that actually allows this to happen.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

WHIMSICALNBRAINPAN

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:14 PM

Quote:
Einstein was awed by the complexity of the universe and by his place in it. He referred to this magnificent natural structure as God, but by no means did he mean it in a theistic sense. I could just as easily call the universe 'God' and share Einstein's reason for doing so, however this would not stop me being an athiest, as I would not believe in God the deity, but God the universe.

Another Einstein quote on religion:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What i see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuine religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

I guess I need you to answer a question for me then. How can someone who calls themselves religious, even if it is not in any traditional sense, be considered an atheist? I'm not trying to bait you or put you down here, this is an honest question. The handfull of atheists I've know in "real life" would never use that word to describe what they believe in given its connotation. I do get your point on the use of the word God but I still can't comprehend why a true atheist would use it.

I still stand by my veiw that Einstein thought that religion and science are not exclusive to themselves but rather they reflect or connect to each other. Which is the point I was trying to make not what his personal dogma (or maybe anti-dogma is better

) was.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Completely off the subject, I love your sig. I'm a huge Dark Tower fan and that is one of my favorite quotes. "Long days and pleasant nights."

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

*ascendency of a scientific dictatorship
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy2.htm

From the first paragraph on the first link I can tell that this is complete crap and skimming the "references" only shows that further. All this article does is giving one persons conspiracy theory and (s)he "supports" it by referencing what other people have said which agrees with him/her. The problem here is that no actual fact is referenced, just books/articles/etc that other people have written which basically are the same thing as this author is doing here.

Simply put, you have person A who has some crack-pot theory and writes about it giving no reference to any actual fact(s). Then some people think that this is a good idea and do the same thing, but reference person A. Then more people do the same but reference not just A, but everyone else as well. etc.

So, we end up with a structure that is entirely dependent on that first person (or but a few that are doing the exact same thing) which is completely fallacious. This is basically a structure that is a house of cards in a strong wind.

Sorry man, but my bullshit detector went into overdrive when I started to read it. And I gave it two chances as when I started to read it last night, I was very tired and thought that I might be missing something. So, I just tried again and got the same results.

IMO, you should move away from this type of thing/people/way of thinking. Perhaps take a math course would help as those courses tend to give the successful student a very keen sense of logic and more importantly, what isn't logic.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whimsicalnbrainpan:

I guess I need you to answer a question for me then. How can someone who calls themselves religious, even if it is not in any traditional sense, be considered an atheist?

I think because you and Einstein are using very different definitions of the term religous and you seem to be arguing from the point of view in which they are the same.

Basically, he seems to be calling himself a atheist using the conventional defintion of religous, but religous in his own unique definition of that term. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot really be compared in the same context.

Yes/no?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whimsicalnbrainpan:
I guess I need you to answer a question for me then. How can someone who calls themselves religious, even if it is not in any traditional sense, be considered an atheist? I'm not trying to bait you or put you down here, this is an honest question. The handfull of atheists I've know in "real life" would never use that word to describe what they believe in given its connotation. I do get your point on the use of the word God but I still can't comprehend why a true atheist would use it.

I still stand by my veiw that Einstein thought that religion and science are not exclusive to themselves but rather they reflect or connect to each other. Which is the point I was trying to make not what his personal dogma (or maybe anti-dogma is better ) was.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Completely off the subject, I love your sig. I'm a huge Dark Tower fan and that is one of my favorite quotes. "Long days and pleasant nights."

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

I'll try and avoid talk of Einstein and talk only of myself, though I believe Einstein shared many if not all of my feelings on the subject.

In an attempt to answer your question in a logical manner I thought it best to use the dictionary definition for certain words and not place my own meaning in them. I am an atheist in the sense that I am not a theist. Theism being:

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

I do not believe in a spiritual God nor a creator God (nor in any God at all for that matter). In this sense I am an atheist. I am not a nihilist (a world view many people assume all atheists are). However in looking around me I can see how beautiful, intricate and incredible the world and the universe are and am equally humbled and awed by it and by my understanding of my place within it, by the incredible number of tiny steps it has taken to get from the big bang (or whatever did indeed start the universe) to the world we live in now and my existence within it.

The dictionary (I'm using dictionary.com for this btw) gives nine definitions of religion, but I think the first one is best which defines it as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" and in this sense I am religious. Buddhism is a good example of a religion which can be attached to anyone, be they theist or atheist. You could also include humanism (though its status as a religion is more tenuous than Buddhism is), and I certainly find myself leaning towards the humanist philosophy.

I hope this answers your question adequately, if not feel free to ask anything else. I was wracking my brain for a suitable Dark Tower quote and thought this was perfect: 'and that it the truth'

-------------------------------------------------

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 10:26 PM

But didn't Einstien also say:
"God does not play dice with the Universe"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But didn't Einstien also say:
"God does not play dice with the Universe"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

I believe he was being metaphorical. There's actually a segment on that quote in The God Delusion, but unfortunately I don't have it to hand to reference it for you. As such I'll try and give my limited interpretation of it:

He did say that, but as previously stated Einstein referred to the creative forces of the universe, the 'lawful harmony of the world' as God so what he was actually saying was the universe does not play dice with itself, that a universe based on logical scientific progression and maintenance cannot be random.

Interesting to note though, is that he is almost universally condemned (by physicists at least) as being quite wrong on that point.

-------------------------------------------------

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
Interesting to note though, is that he is almost universally condemned (by physicists at least) as being quite wrong on that point.

And by himself

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE