The belief in God has caused more problems than it has solved!
Actually, a break here. Or not. Bored. Undecided as to continue or not.
Sick and tired of this thread here...
Trying to find a solution...Nope...
You could also include "irrelevant" or even "What the hell is your point?"
"Neither" "Both" and "It depends on what my spouse wants to do tonight" would also work.Actually my first thought was "where the hell did that come from?"
My next was "who the hell was she talking to?"
Then I thought just those two options sounded kind of boring.
That's funny!! Also add "Depends, are you hitting on me??" LOL!!
Wait! I have some 8X10 glossies that will answer your question in my special briefcase. Is also a proper response.
Or simply
"Wanna see?"Those glossies better be at least 3-dimensional!
I love you Jonny... but why on earth would it matter to you?
I really need to get the true perspective on all strange people I associate with here!
I would hate to get molested.
Got any lollies for me?Oh... I see
I'd worry more about Mo... I'm too tired to molest anyone. Mo however... you need to watch out for her.Now that's funny!! I agree with Melissa, Mo is the one to worry about molesting you..LOL
It's a beautiful sunny day here, must get out and enjoy it. See you's later folks.
I've seen happily married people molest others in fun.. You know, a playful goose or smack on the bottom...LOL
*Grins* Don't smack or goose too hard. I'm still floppy from having the Tater, so it takes me a while to shop shimmying once I get started.
Hey...everybody loves a good shimmy! That's how I won my hubby!
That's how I got my hubby too... and each additional child makes the shimmy worse. It's a vicious circle.
And how My wife won me.. Well that and her cooking..LOL
when I first met my wife she couldn't make spaghetti. Like, she couldn't even boil the water. Now, she's up to bacon and eggs, so I guess all my hard work is paying off. The Shimmy, though - that was a key factor when we got together. That and the fact that she smiles and the rest of the world melts.
The Story of Adam and Eve is Absolutely True and very relevant to modern Times,
No! Original Sin is not sex.
It is said that Adam recognized his nakedness.
Wrong; Adam recognized that he was Bare-Ass-Naked.
Recognizing that he was Bare was Adams's First sign of Wisdom; the word Naked used in reference to Man being “Bare-Ass-Naked”, the word bare used in reference to man being born less than a mere Animal, incomplete, flawed, not being born fully clothed, without specification.
Born Bare, less than a mere animal, man would have to become more than a mere animal if he is to over come the need to fight and to win the battle for the survival of the most fit (ninety-nine percent of every creature born on the Planet Earth now extinct due to competition within the species) Man’s Salvation being for man to become more than a mere animal, God Like, All Knowing.
However, Man became a Know-it-All instead; meaning that whatever came to mind, man reasoned, rationalized, to be Absolutely Good Knowledge of Reality; resulting in most of the Knowledge born of Man’s Rational Mind being Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Knowledge having Dual Quality, being Guileful.
Knowledge coming to fruition, being born of Man’s Rational Mind, the Rational Mind being the Single Source of Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Knowledge having a Dual Quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be absolute Good Knowledge, Knowledge that is not born of the many source of Knowledge, Space-Time, the Four-Dimensional World of Reality, that is not readily apparent, not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time.
Absolutely Good Knowledge being of a Reality that exists independent of the mind, of our ideas, our thoughts, conjectures, speculations, Theory; Absolutely Good Knowledge being of a Reality that is readily apparent, measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time.
The Consumption of Knowledge having a dual quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge is the direct cause of Guilefulness, Duplicity, Deception, Evil, is the greatest cause of Man’s Suffering, and even the possibility of being the cause of his death, Man’s Extinction.
Creation, the generation, the rationalization as to what is a Reality, in the material sense of the word, the Knowledge of a Reality that is not Universal, that is of a Single Source, has a Dual Quality, the consumption of Absolutely Bad Knowledge as though It were Absolutely Good Knowledge, Rationalization, Guilefulness, Duplicity, Deception being the cause of all
Suffering, Evil; being the Original Sin, the origin of Sin.If it's not this one it's another one like it.
What's the difference?
I find it unbelievable that there are people that do not realize that we are all lab rats.
Still can't tell if paradigmsearch is male or female. I'm curious. Not one hint. The only thing we can tell is that this thread is driving him/ her nuts. I really don't know why he/ she bothers to read it. It is enough to drive anyone nuts.
Gosh! Maybe look at my profile? And who cares?
The lyrics from Bob dylan came to my mind for some reason... you ache just like a woman, but you break just like a little girl. So, after checking your profile it is completely irrelevant and never mind. However, I notice you do write about things which are interesting to women.
High scores unite! I just received 91. Can I join?
I decree 95 by end of week. I checked your profile. Not kidding.
Well, for the amount of effort I put into this forum alone, I should get some other award, as well.
You too. 100 soon, I am quite sure. Really!
prickdumb. Can I getaway with that? And by the way, the misinterpretation of God has caused more problems than have ever been solved.
Agreed. The concept is used for own people's purposes.
The answer or thought that comes to mind from the OP is that it depends on what the problems are that we are talking about, and the degree of seriousness. Some things are a problem in a pesky sense, some problems cause real trouble, and SOME problems, if real and true, are life and death and potentially eternal life and death. (Considering the topic....)
One could make an argument that say if a belief in a real historical Jesus is true and his message were true, then that belief is the remedy to mankind's absolute greatest problem. That being, our possible eternal states and the "whys" behind that. That particular belief is kind of like a remedy from the doctor in a sense.... God would know that we are on a path to death that we chose and why, while providing a way of redemption for mankind. He knows man's "disease" and knows the remedy, and shared that with mankind, in essence giving possibility for man's greatest problem ever.
It could be considered a "perspective thing" in that sense. It also depends on what one means. One could make the same argument for many things that cause problems, including a non belief in God, or a belief that any other number of things are true or not true, that bring ills on the world. It is impossible to measure really, and I understand it is an opinion kind of question. Much clearly has been "solved" by such beliefs for all the incredible good it brings about as seen over history and current dayI almost worked up the energy to read your post. But I did not. Sorry.
You are not here to discuss the forum threads yet post so much in them? I do not mind, and it is kind of "lol inducing", even if I don't fully understand. Ya ought to read some of this stuff, it could be a big deal potentially, and you are obviously very drawn to this thread... lol, think it was meant to be! Read up, grab a cup of tea or something...or not.
He always got away with a lot. He was very charming, very audacious, very irresistible. The kind who would jump off the roofs of houses into swimming pools. Or slide down the golf course hills on an ice block in the middle of the night. He was the one who knew how to fix your car no matter what the problem was and if you could catch him in the right mood, he might help you. He would be willing to talk to you about astronomy and religion and God. And you loved him. You couldn't help it. But what he really wanted he could not say. He wished he knew, but he didn't. Why was he here? A better question was, how could he get out of here.
How?I wish!
You knew I liked you from the start.We are both in SoCal. My pulse rate quickens...
We might get kicked off HP together. We will have to find another way to communicate.
PS I like walks on the beach at sunset and long drives up and down PCH...
Can I call you Parry?
Parry?
?
Darn, bored already.Good editing is good writing. That 's what I strive for. Have you noticed?
She wanted his approval, but he would never give it. It was no use. She gave up. She watched him from afar. Bantering with with the others. Charming the others. She wanted his attention. She would get it, but
How?
Maybe if she just blurted out, The belief in God has caused more problems than it has solved!
Naw.
She would discover what topic w o u l d hold his attention.
To be continued.
Elsewhere.
Good Night Parry.
You must be reading a different history book than the rest of us. Mankind's absolute greatest problem is nonsensical eternal states?
Just as a matter of interest - how does not believing in Majickal Invisible Super Beings cause problems?The short and to the point answer: Because it drives some believers crazy. I used to subscribe to the same ideas a lot of them do which is "Everyone has to get saved!!" I used to have the fear (of hell) mindset when it came to believing so I used to make it my business. Now I'm of the mind of to each their own. Live the way that works best for you
So the real problem is not the non-belief?
No, The problem isn't the non belief nor the belief in God himself. The problem is with people's opinions of other people's beliefs and the resulting reactions thereof.
Take for example, When I first started on this site (before I came to understand you and other atheists), when you first responded to one of my comments, I Admittedly became defensive because I felt like I was being attacked. So I attacked back. It was (to me) a 50-50 thing.
People's passions (especially dealing with people that they don't personally know) tent to boil over when they take things personally instead of trying to understand each other's mindset..
Like the saying goes: Seek to understand before you seek to be understood
Have I really killed this thread? Say it ain't so, Joe!
I continue to wander by... Why my previous post in the dog house?
Why don't you just ask for what you want:
I want you guys to come to my blog site and sign up with google and lets party!
Right?! it would be a blast. I loved that poem.This stupid thread really must die... But it is so much fun...
- Spikologyposted 12 years ago
0The biggest argument between atheist and theists is the lack of facts to prove that God exists, which makes it a science versus philosophy debate (because religion is a philosophy). Now, we have answered a lot of the scientific problems that we have faced, but we are still trying to answer the questions that were presented to us by the founders of philosophy (the Greeks), such as “Why are we here?” Now, if you measure the progress we have made in scientific subjects such as chemistry, one could say that philosophy must be irrelevant, since we have made no progress. But the problem with that is if we feel this way, then it means we have stopped searching for an answer, and isn’t that just giving up on progress. Therefore, religion is the search for that answer making it a progressive endeavor.
Wrong. We can answer all the philosophical questions that religion has proven itself incapable of answering.
Well, let me elaborate for you. What about "What is the meaning of life?"
So what you are saying is that problem is solved, so we don't have to search anymore. Just hang on for the ride and not worry about anything else?
I guess you have me there. Well played. Anyone else?
Why do we need a why? There doesn't need to be a reason why we are here. For example why are lady bugs alive? They just are just as we just are.
We ask the big questions to progress. If no one asked "Does the sun rotate around us or do we rotate around the sun?" we would still think the earth is flat. To ask questions is to explore. The really big questions should be asked even if they seem impossible to find out.
Otherwise you are just sitting around waiting to die.Asking the question as to why we are here is okay, but it's a rather foolish question as to which can be no definitive answer. No answer would satisfy most unless the answer was a God put us here. That's good enough for some, but they never ask what put God here. Some who answer with God don't look for any other answers, and claim that science is wrong.
Why are there billion upon billions of stars when we need just one. If you answer God up them there for us to look at we stop asking why or how.
Why are we here? For no particular reason other then to survive.You just explained two principles, philosophy and religion (to a degree). The problem with Blanket religion is that most people walk around with the arrogance that they think they are right rather than accept the possibility that they may be wrong. But even in the understanding that I may be wrong, it still doesn't shake my belief system because it is a system that works best for me, much the same as other beliefs (or lack thereof) work best for the individual
I will try my best to not offend with this one.
I completely understand that for some a believe that they are being watched and judged could keep them out of trouble, but you certainly don't seem like that type. How much of what you believe is because of what you've been taught? You're not a muslim or a hindu? You've kind of said even if you were found to be wrong, you'd still believe. Much like the creationist who think the universe is a few thousand years old when all evidence proves a multi billion year of universe and two of every creature living or dead fit inside a boat half the size of a modern day cruise ship for 40 days and then the two went on to repopulate the earth.The church is usually behind in science, but they do try to keep up. I think that is a reflection of humans in general and the church is run by people. I once had a priest who said that the stories in the bible are like parables, not all are to be taken literal. As for which ones should be taken literally, I don't know, but that is why I practice religion. It is about learning. Christians are a work in progress or a student so to speak. I think the problem is that many think they are a finished product. I realize that I don't know much, but would like to learn.
What on earth makes you think you can learn anything from that book? 2,000 years of not doing so makes me wonder why you would even try.
No offense taken, actually, and you posed a great question. I don't think I said I'd still believe if I were found to be wrong. I said although I can accept that I may be wrong, I still believe. If I am proven for any reason beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am wrong, then I can accept it, but still go to my grave with the peace that I lived a life the best I possibly can live. That's similar (IMO) to if some atheists were shown incorruptable proof of God's existence, some would believe but still refuse to follow him (I am basing this thought on statements that I have seen posted by some atheists on other threads) I don't believe and live a life because I am afraid that I am being watched. I am not concerned about that. I am not Muslim nor hindu, But I do not dismiss them nor discount them either. The Islamic faith is one of the original Abrahamic religions (which makes it a sibling to Christianity IMO.) Allah is Arabic for God so In spite of what some of them (and a lot of Christians believe) to me it is the same God. I've read the Quran as well as the bible and I notice that there are a lot of similarities between the two. The difference is the application of some of the principles therein and also some of the names in the myths in each book. I admit that I am not quite as versed in the Hindu culture or it's origins, But I look at it like this: We each have our own interpretation of what and who God is and (for some) how many Gods there are. I used to follow the organized ideals of Christianity when I was a lot younger, But now that I recognize that there is an individualized definition of the term as well as reading and seeing so many Contradictions in the versions written after the Greek and Hebrew translations, looked into the bible for myself and the original versions. Because of this, I have removed myself of the idea of Hell as a place of fire and brimstone and eternal torment. There are a lot of other principles and ideas that I recognize in the bible which have allowed me to take a different look regarding my beliefs. Because of this, A lot of atheists still look at me as delusional, but a lot of Christians look at me as a heretic. But I'm ok with that. I understand that I could be wrong which is why I try not to argue certain points so hard. This is also why I try to respond looking (as closely as I can) at both sides of the spectrum. I've told you that I respect you because the only difference between the way you try to live your life and the way I live mine is that That I gathered a lot of the way I live out of how I understand the bible and what I believe God has done whereas you have totally freed yourself of the idea of living under a tyrant (by your words). I will be happy to share my ideas with you if interested, but I will never force them upon you..
Hope this helps you gain a little more insight into the Deepes Mind...LOLI rarely have ever found your responses offensive to me
Just because it is a hard question to answer, doesn’t mean it is foolish for trying to. There was once a time when humans thought it was foolish to think we would fly or for people to talk a thousand miles away from each other.
I will admit it does seem impossible to come up with an answer for “Why are we here?” but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to find a solution. And if we are only here to “just survive” then we wouldn’t put spices in food or drive convertible cars, right? We would only need the bare essentials to make it day to day. Shelter, food, water, and protection from harm. To me life is about more than that and I want to try to find out why.Expensive spices or convertible cars make us look more successful to some, which increases our chances of procreation and makes us feel better about ourselves. No different then a peacock displaying it's feathers or a male lion fighter for a pride. Humans are no different then any other animal and it arrogant to think so.
Man, we are way different than animals. I have never seen a peacock driving a convertable. lol
What I am saying is that we don't need convertibles to procreate. We were doing that even before fire.
Animals are the ones in survival mode. Why are we so different? Why are we so more advanced? I guess that would be the more specific question instead of why are we here.Ah - now we are moving into the realms of science again.
We evolved this way. The opposable thumb was a big step for us.
We are different to animals how exactly? Because we have developed tools and language?Well, I wouldn’t say opposable thumbs were a “discovery” of science like electricity and medicine, which is what I meant by advanced. Monkeys have opposable thumbs.
The bigger question is why we have language? Why do we have tools? Science can explain how our brains grew rapidly when we began to eat protein which helped us advance. We stand upright because when left the trees to hunt, the grass was too high, so our backs adjusted. Science can answer this, but the bigger question is why haven’t other animals advanced like us? Was it luck? Was it natural design or is it something bigger? I guess that is the mystery humans have tried to find in religion for thousands of years.
I think the world is big enough for science and religion. We just have to realize that it doesn’t have to be either or.Because we evolved them. Biology is science is it not? Religion cannot answer these questions. Only science will.
Biology is going to happen whether we understand it or not. Convertibles, on the other hand, are not biology. Planes didn’t just happen we invented them as we advanced. That is what I meant by advancing (i.e. the reference to peacocks driving convertibles).
Good answer. Now Imma make you laugh. By your answer, I could honestly reason (and have reasoned the possibility) that Science fills in the spaces that religion could not answer. The myths are just myth that give a reductionist explanation for the occurrences that the original writers couldn't due to lack of resources. With the improvements in science and technology, it is possible that these scientists have provided a more logical and reasonable answer than "God waved his hand".
For example- the big bang theory could be explained as God clapped his hands in creation (hypothetical, not my actual belief)Give me ten examples of the questions that religion has answered.
I didn't say religion actually provided an answer to specific things. I said science filled in the gaps that the original writers couldn't answer. A lot of how the "Blanket Religion" operates is simply based off of that 2,000 year old book. I can accept that science provides more logical answers, but I also look at the possibility that science simply gives a better answer than religion.
It's like the saying goes: there are three sides of every story, yours, mine, and the truth and if you examine the truth, you notice the truth is a mixture of both sides.That saying is not appropriate - especially given that you are unable to point me at a single instance of religion answering any questions at all. I don't think there is any truth to any religious claims.
Once again, religion today hasn't answered those questions today (i can agree with that). But at the time the Bible was written, an answer was provided (as according to that time and what resources were available).
I only stated that it was a possibility. I never said that I was correct. I even stated that I agreed with you that religion (especially organized religion) has not and will not produce that answer. It took scientists (some religious, some non religious) thinking more critically and suspending beliefs to get some answers.But that doesn't disprove the existence of God anymore than religion has proven the existence of God.
It is because of this I have respect for your views as well as the views of other atheists on HP. God has neither been proven or disproven (In my opinion), so I can respect and accept everything that you have offered.
The rational alternative sounds more like agnosticism- not atheism if you believe what you wrote.
Why is that? because I can admit that I may be wrong?
Yes. For me I claim experiential and inference as reason for belief. It is possible that I could change my mind in the future. After which I could still not claim I know truth. I can only know knowledge. Truth is a different matter altogether.
To quote a wise person earlier:
It's like the saying goes: there are three sides of every story, yours, mine, and the truth and if you examine the truth, you notice the truth is a mixture of both sides.
I would add that it is more than a mixture. The nature of truth is different than knowledge. You can notice it and you can examine it or witness it. We just cant know it tomorrow.
Agnosticism is honest and intellectual if one is not claiming experiential and inference.
Why do you believe?I believe for a few reasons that make sense to me. I do not claim to have all the knowledge at my disposal, but I believe because what understanding I gathered from the bible (well certain parts) have shown themselves valuable for me and my life. I also built my beliefs on the original translations of the Bible and as such have been able to free myself of the dogma attached to it. On the other hand, I prefer to not think that this is the end and that there is nothing better after this life. This is an optimistic (at best) outlook and one that I can accept may be incorrect, But it is what works best for me.. I guess I simply choose to believe this fairy tale (To quote one of my favorite atheists...LOL). I do not take every word of the Bible literally exactly as written, but I have developed based on the principles contained therein.
Besides finding value for your life, what are the few reasons you seem to allude to?
Or was that all? You found useful philosophy, you hope for something better or more to life. You found useful philosophy or helpful or valuable life lessons and it gives you hope?Those are the primary reasons. I have had experiences personally that add to my belief. Not certain what other reason you may be looking for?
Thats what I was looking for- I have had experiences personally
You do not have to share, I understand.Do you believe? or do you consider yourself agnostic?
Oh I am a believer. I believe because of the experiential (personal experience) such as you but also because I think it is a logical conclusion (inference) as well.
If not for those two reasons, I would be agnostic. Because of the nature of truth and knowledge.Also because I am aware of the nature of truth and knowledge I could never be atheist
A couple of atheists I know would argue that logic and belief rarely go hand in hand because belief is not always based on truth and there is no proof of the existence of God
Right Rad and Mark?What kind of existence are we talking about? Where was Rad and Mark 50 billion years ago?
I wasn't even around 50 years ago. Do you have a truth about 50 billion years ago?
If reincarnation is real you might have been around then, just don't remember...LOL
Perhaps I need to directly respond to posters.
Perhaps I need to directly respond to posters.
Since you replied on one of my postings, I will tell you that you are mostly being ignored because you are not really adding anything to the discussion. Not sure if you are boosting your profile or just trolling for attention, but this is the reason you aren't really getting responded to
That's just him.
He is trying in his own way to tell us that the thread has gotten too long and pointless. I personally feel that the conversation has actually become one of the better and more civilized ones. Para apparently feels differently for some reason.
Unlike Pheonix... even if you ignore para he will not go away. He's not doing it for attention... He's doing it to... er... amuse himself I believe. And to make a point... albeit a remarkably excessive point... (even for him.)I know Melissa, I just answered him because he chose one of my posts to make a comment on.. I intended on going back to ignoring him. I agree, I am enjoying this conversation immensely
I've looked in on it over the day... I don't really have a lot of time to give to drop more than one-liners. Work/kids/homeschool are all kicking my arse today. But some good stuff.
Well our universe is said to be about 13.77 billion yeas old so we must have been from a different universe.
I guess so. My bad.. maybe you weren't around back then...LOL
As in physical evidence that God is real. Evidence of any type. Just to warn you, If you point to creation,, they will laugh
Who will laugh? Creation was 15 billion years ago. The onus is upon them to "prove they exist" back then. Their version of existence seems to come and go a lot. They werent there back then, they are here now, theyll be gone in the future. Their existence seems to be a fleeting manifestation, somewhat like out physical reality might be. Right?
However in this fleeting manifestation we see examples and concepts that indicate something else as well. Like my garage door opener example with Rad. Its like - In mathematics, a Fourier series decomposes periodic functions or periodic signals into the sum of a (possibly infinite) set of simple oscillating functions, namely sines and cosines (or complex exponentials). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series
The sum of possibly infinite series.
So I do not think we are looking for the sum. The sum is what we see. We are in the sum. We are trying to fit everything we understand into a sum square hole. But, we see this "possible infinite" example or concept. It does not have the same nature. And its round and it wont fit into our understanding of our sum world. But still we have the example. Yet they work in tandem.
Now we are no longer attributing a narrow expectation of what existence is without understanding its possible inherent unknowable properties, because we are now searching for evidence of hypothetical creator of the manifestation, but not necessarily should it be assumed to have only one of the qualities, or all of the qualities or none of the qualities of the manifestation itself.
If we all existed as self aware radio signals it would be natural to look for a hypothetical creator by "tuning in" or searching for radio signals. Then we understand that radio signals are products of radios. Now our reality has grown to signals and radios that produce signals. Some guy in a factory making radios does not look anything like a radio signal or a radio.
I Have to take a break to eat. But would be glad to continue if you like.I already know the response "What does all of this have to do with proving God's existence?"
Right Rad or Mark??I personally think I have an idea of where you are going, But if you will elaborate further that would be great
Well I am glad you know where I am going because I forgot to eat and my blood sugar went out the door lol but I ate something.
Before you were saying Rad and Mark want proof of existence, and then we or you kind of changed it to "evidence that God is real" without using the creation in any way. So I believe you do understand where I am coming from.
I see people like the radio signal analogy. Only its an inverted and transposed analogy of our reality . They want to be shown a radio signal and nothing else matters. That is the way they exist, that is the way they think everything should exist. They do not seem to be able to speculate that radios exist much more radio makers. In the inverted analogy; radio signals are the physical world. Radios are the concepts like infinite series, yet they work in tandem. Radio makers resemble radios more than radio signals. So in the analogy a radio maker looks closer to the infinite series part than the sum part.Ok, So if I'm hearing you correctly then God is more like a radio (as in more of a concept rather than something real and tangible)?
No more like the radio maker. Radios and radio signals are our reality, in the analogy. Imagine our physical reality is a radio signal, but it has (infinite series) attributes which are radios.
Human beings that make radios are made of flesh and blood. Radios are made of plastic, so even though radios resemble radio makers more than radio signals, they still arent really alike in many ways. Meaning if God is infinite, He may not even look like what we understand to be what infinite means.So we got these "self aware" radio signals that expect all reality should look as they do, like radio signals. Perhaps they even figure out the concepts called radios, even though its a counter-intuitive concept.
They are scrambling to tune in to radio makers. But radio makers are not signals they are radio makers and potential broadcasters.
Broadcasters choose to broadcast.
That is experiential evidence.Yes, That would be the logical next step because now we are getting into an area of where we are comparing our reality to that of a radio and as such a radio is an inanimate object. Because if I'm understanding you now, it seems like you are saying that God is a radio maker, Humans are radios, and reality (or realities) are the radio signals. If I have you correct, Atheists are still searching for proof of the existence of the "radio maker"
Most of this is sort of moot because you can trace a radio back to it's maker and manufacturer. So I'm pretty sure Rad and Mark will look at this analogy as irrelevant and in no way a factor to prove the existence of God.
But I think I do see what you mean.. In layman's terms, we have no way of knowing where we came from or how we were made and as such no way to provide proof of our overall origins (God). Does that about sum it up?Still dont understand the analogy. The radio is our concept of infinite series. The radio and the radio signals are physical reality, you and me. Both are of reality. Radio makers cannot be tracked back to the manufacture by "radio signals or radios" . Radios play music. They do not have the perception or ability to hop on trains and search for human beings. Same as radio signals, Their nature is to oscillate in their realm. How would a radio or radio signal perceive a radio maker? Radios only perceive radio signals. Self aware radio signals are aware of themselves and possibly concepts like radios.
But in your other terms you seem to get sort of the gist of it.
Its not that we have no way of knowing, its just that we dont have the ability to perceive it.
In the analogy, its more logical that a radio maker- would broadcast a signal that we could perceive as opposed to us assuming we have the ability to perceive.
How many movies do you watch on your vacuum cleaner? Why cant you watch movies on your vacuum cleaner? vacuum cleaner should be able to play movies because that is the way vacuum cleaners work aint it? No, there is nothing wrong with the vacuum cleaner or movies. They are just incompatible for that application.
Consider that 99% of the people in the world are blind. And that its a culture of blind people that has been around for thousands of year. All a sudden 1% are claiming that they can see etc. How can they convince them that there is vision? The problem is not the visual world, the problem is their lack of perception. The 1% can try to explain it to them, but to actually "know vision" a doctor would have to repair their vision. It takes an active part on a doctor to do it.
Likewise its is more logical that a hypothetical creator of our reality would fare better 'sending individuals" '-personal experience- or revelation of " than it would be for the individuals to be able to perceive it on their own.My vision aint as good as it used to be but I have a pretty good computer monitor. Someone show me the value of pi to the last digit. I know what numbers look like. I can see okay enough.
Someone show me the value of pi to the last digit.
I probably got a few years left in me, knock on wood, so I am in no hurry. Use all the supercomputers you want.
Someone show me the value of pi to the last digit.
Or is it that because of the nature of the value of pi to the last digit would require me to live an infinite time just to observe it in process- But still not Know it. I could witness it in action, I could notice it and examine it in action. But even living infinitely I could only see it as it " was in the process of being"- The problem is I am not capable of perceiving it in its entirety even if lived infinitely., much less the time i'm allotted. Its not the fault of me or pi. Its just that we are of out of phase with each other. I guess I can stamp my feet and demand it show me its last integer.To be clear , we really have not been discussing proof of God or existence of God or evidence of God being real, but more of laying some ground work on what the words or terms like "proof, existence, evidence" actually means as well as the perception of reality. Then using thought experiments or analogies in an algebraical style.
Also, no human being can discount or invalidate unknowns and unknowable because of the very nature of unknowns. x + y = z . None of these characters can be discounted merely because they are unknown. I cant say y and z are valid and x is being assumed. So far We are discussing the sum of z and and its two parts of x and y.
Our perception of reality is of proof, existence , evidence, matter and density .
True reality is scale and frequency.
Is there not a dilemma?
That is the standard argument from ignorance this person keeps repeating.
Problem is - you need to assume this god thing first - then make the argument to back up the assumption.I am aware of it. I was trying to help I think.. At least trying to let him know what I've learned from you and Rad
He is not interested. He is here to argue that his belief is not irrational.
That is a very interesting and great post. One could take that analogy even further in regards to a possible God and his/her/its creation and how that creation responds if at all.
I don't find the idea of us, applying what turns out to be our wants and desires, onto what is allowed to exist by our own definitions and how it ought to do so. That isn't how truth and reality works. It is not an attractive way to think, and that goes for me if I do that as well or anyone on my side of the world view I hold.
If we just apply what is allowed to exist and how, how does that actually affect the things in question, rather than possibly deluding ourselves and feeling pleased and satisfied with that? Also, our reactions to our world, our daily lives tell a much different picture. It looks like this turns out to be another case of overestimating the value of our assertions onto what exists,or what is even "allowed" to exist, and how it's even allowed to qualify for existence. Things are already in existence or not, despite our definitions and even very extreme insistence of what turns out to be personally held beliefs, bottom line. (After peeling away the layers of reasoning a person might give.) We don't get to say something is or not, and have it be so not, it has to actually be so or not.
One thing is always true no matter what, and that is that something that exists has to have something to point to, to account for its existence. It is very logical and scientific, normally to suggest such an obvious thing. We tend to play mind games with ourselves it turns out sometimes, by switching up the game and making and applying rules and limitations that don't even make sense on what we want to be true, and what can't be true. All without justification. What would explain that behavior? I know something that does.... Not a lot does...but there are things that do. Your analogy is a new and fascinating one, very excellent and I think whatever accounts for us being here and being able to ponder it, allows for such ideas to be in existence also..
For the record, some of the answers I point to you are answers i got from atheists, so if I include one of them in my answer, that is the reason
That's funny, you know the truth, but later you may find that you didn't back then know the truth, but you know it now, until a new truth come along.
The truth is you don't know what your talking about.
Truth;
that which is true or in accidence with fact or reality.
Reality;
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance
What truth do you have that is in accidence with fact or reality (having existence or substance)?Knowledge is a garage opener. Truth is the amount of possible frequencies that garage opener contains. Go and learn.
PS And never darken my towels againCan't even answer my question. What truth do you have that is in accidence with fact or reality (having existence or substance)?
Does that sentence come with an or else?Like I said before, truth is like the amount of possible frequencies in a garage opener. The garage door opener itself- is fact or knowledge or the parameter of frequency, but its not the amount of possible frequencies. Why is fact and truth irreconcilable in that analogy? A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Haven't you noticed that the more he is ignored the more almost desperate his posts seem? You are only encouraging him.
The thread had actually became productive and enlightening. The conversation was becoming civil and intelligent.
Why let it devolve again?Wait a minute?!?!?!? A civil discussion and debate between atheists, agnostics, and believers? Who woulda thunk that would be possible? LOL!
You're right, but I just can't help it. He's way too funny. That truth thing has got me in stitches.
Why does anyone have to disprove the existence of a creature there is no evidence of?
I'm not stating that anyone has to disprove anything. I am merely stating that one side doesn't and cannot prove the other side wrong as according to information provided. Even science cannot answer every question beyond a certain point. So there are some things science cannot fully prove. They can only give a theory of a lot of things that may have happened based on data collected over time and someone saying "based on what I'm looking at, I think this happened..." They have no further way of proving their facts and truths beyond that. Who came up with the different names for the evolution of humans? and where did they get that from?
And I agree that science can discover that, not religion. I actually posted that earlier.
Science is a tool of an inquisitive mind. The science that is as promoted here is a vacuous claim of an answer. They are just replacing "god dunnit" with "science dunnit".
The moment mankind became self aware they started asking questions. They asked similar questions as you have been. Was it luck? Design? What about language etc. The answer you are receiving, lack any thought whatsoever. eg it just is and its science.
Reality is following a pattern. Patterns of reality are being discerned or attempts are being made to discern that reality by humans asking questions.
Einstein: We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages.The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.
Why the patterns or mysterious order? Is everything just an expression of chaos? Or is it the expression of an intelligence. Is reality just noise that every once in a while spawns music? It would take too much blind faith for me to believe that chaos and noise produced random songs and random listeners.I agree. We have just seen the tip of the iceberg
Interesting. You have no answers yourself yet are happy to reject the ones offered.
This is why religion causes so many fights.No. I do not think anyone rejected any answers. There were no answers offered to reject. Some of us were amused at the lack of intellectual attempt, however . I know I was.
That is why your beliefs have entertainment value.What beliefs are they? That we evolved and the purpose of life is to be lived?
"It just is and it kinda just got that way". Go sit down.
My hobbies include Evolution and Darwin and Hanging out in religion forums! I have no clue about genetic drift, I just like Darwin and Evolution because it in my opinion is a contradiction of a personal literal interpretation of Genesis!
Can you make toast?Sorry if my answer is too simple for you. Evolution is quite complex and interesting actually. Go look it up. You might learn something.
But blind faith tells you God done it and you don't ask who created God? Once you've decided God's done it no need to ask any more questions. That'll kill another 1000 years or so.
Blind faith leads to those kind of conclusions, but there are some Christians that don't where blinders.
Yes, because the only conclusion is an arrogant conclusion. There is no why for us being here, we just are and in about 50 years we will no longer be here.
Us of course. However unless humans find a way out of our solar system we won't be around forever. A nearby supernova or hypernova could wipe us out instantly and earth would look like mars or venus very shortly. Or we would wait for our own sun to expire.
Red Herring and a strawman. Do not waste my time.
Again, you are starting with the assumption that we have evolved further than other species. This is simply not the case. Every species has evolved for survival. Humans are no further evolved then a crocodile, we are simply in a different direction. Our brains most likely evolved as it has to hunt and used tools. It takes a lot of brain power to throw with accuracy and construct and use tools. Those born smarter would be more successful and reproduce more often.
You're making the assumption that everything wants to be like us, but a cheetah with our sprinting speed would be useless.
Imagine aliens on another planet being 10 times smarter then us wondering why no other intelligent beings have evolved.I said we have evolved further, not better. If I could run like a cheetah, I would be in the NFL right now and not chatting with you guys (not that it’s a bad thing, but I would also have a convertible). But we have evolved further, and not just physically, but mentally. A crocodile today is pretty much the same as it was 5000 years ago, physically and mentally.
Those being born smarter and reproducing more often, I would like to hope I am smarter than a rabbit. And I would also hope that I don’t reproduce like one. The children I have are enough to handle.How have we evolved further exactly? our evolution is set up and based on how we were created as a species. every animal has evolved and adapted as according to that particular animal. How can it be seriously said that we have evolved further?
Does that about cover it Rad? lolYup, thanks Deepes. I would again like to add that we are by no means the most numerous animal either. Does that make the rat, mouse and chicken further evolved than we are?
You might consider more population, more evolved, but I don't.
How then do you define further evolved then? I'm trying to look at all the possible reasons for you thinking that we are further down the evolutionary tree and all I've gotten so far is an guy in a convertible driving down the highway. It's impossible to be further evolved then something that is currently alive at the same time we are.
Let's replace the word evolved with advanced. I pretty much consider us more advanced since we drive convertibles.
I think this is like trying to define what "is" is.Now you're talking, but we can't simple state that further evolved equates to advanced. If you want to look at the most successful you have to look at the most numerous and we are not the most numerous.
I agree. I used evolved instead of advanced. I interchanged them too easily.
As for most populous being the most successful, we will have to agree to disagree. I feel like since we are in control, we are more successful. I’m sure the argument can be that what do I consider in control, but I have never been in a human trap put out by a mouse.
I think this is an argument between quality over quantity, so it is really based on opinion.True, But it was reported that mice was the cause of the plague and as such was responsible for the death of a LOT of people. So the question does become what do you mean by control? Because if we were dropped in the jungle or the serengetti without the tools to survive, we could become victim to the animals that live there
Not at all. Every species evolved as necessary to survive for that species
Again, I wouldn't describe what we do as just surviving. It's way more than that.
I will say I used a poor choice of words by saying evolved.
Art, restaurants, internet chat rooms. I would not say we are "just" surviving as a species.
The peacock shows off to entice a mate just as the guy in the convertible shows off that he is successful to entice a mate.
We are also in survival mode, technology and science has given us more time to think. All our behaviours can be seen in other animals. We are smarter while others are stronger and faster. We are just another species of mammal, assuming anything different is arrogant.I guess what I mean is that we do a lot more than "just survive". Lions wake up and it is a day to day struggle. They hunt each and every meal they have or they die.
Me, on the other hand, I get mad when my seat warmer is broken in my car or Starbucks is not selling a certain coffee I bought during the holidays.Let's drop you in the middle of the savanna naked and see how you feel about survival?
My point exactly. I would not make it very far. I cry when I get a papercut. Plus they don't have Starbucks.
How is that your point. Humans are so pathetically weak we build houses and building to protect us from the elements and other much stronger animals, not to mention parasites.
Among mammals the Rat and the Mouse are far more numerous than humans. Does that mean they are more evolved and better adapted to earth?
Even mites, nematodes and roundworms and chickens are more numerous then humans and therefore are more successful. We did give a little help to the chicken mostly because they are just so darn yummy.
I'd like to ask some objective questions: Are you implying that religion is the source that allows for inquiry, and sets the stage for the invention of machines like the airplane? Do you believe that science, which has tried to find real solutions, is supported by dogmas that give answers from ancient texts?
No. What I am saying is that science finds the answers to the natural world that religion is less likely to acknowledge. When it becomes common knowledge or widely accepted by the census, then religion will adjust. I will say that is a weakness of religion.
But then why that? Why is mere survival enough? In fact, isn't that really even worse than simply saying that a god put us here? Because isn't that really just one step away from those who claim that mankind is here to dominate others? Or conversely, that we simply exist so what's the point?
Really?Reality, survival and family are pretty big things. Telling ourselves we are here to dominate the planet is arrogant and unnecessary. The planet would be just fine without us.
Yes, they would be arrogant. But that's what a lot of people do.
And the ones you mentioned are indeed pretty big things, but is it really enough? Is our purpose here really just to live until we die?I would strike out the word "just," and emphasize "live." To live fully, to the best of each one's ability, becoming fully aware, fully conscious, drinking in with each and every one of our faculties all the wonders that confront us.
That should be a worthy object of life, I suggest. Forget the dying bit. The living will take up all our time and attention.Do the best we can to give the next generation a good start and enjoy life along the way.
This is an example of philosophy. some answers are limited to individual perspective. Mark says the meaning of life is to live. Rad Man says there doesn't need to be a meaning. different strokes for different folks. Each situation is like a thumbprint. no two are exactly the same though they may be similar in design
Just like we are all made from flesh and blood, yet we are individuals.
There are some things that in application do not apply to all people. Even a blanket thrown over a group of people will not cover all people. That's why although I believe in God, I try to keep myself separate from the Fire and brimstone Christians.
The religions, that I know, do not SEARCH for anything. They just give us LIES and tell us those LIES are the answers to our perplexing puzzling reality. That's NOT progressive.
Wow. You are very passionate about your opinion and you wear your heart on your sleeve. Good for you!
I myself try to be objective in these types of forums and not let my emotions take over. I wish I could have a little more passion like that.I see. Another angry Christian. Good for you. Great passive/aggressive attack though. Keep up the insults for Jesus...while the rest of us debate the absurdities of these posts. Objective?!!!
I am sorry if I insulted you. I was only asking questions in the spirit of debate and learning.
Sometimes it is hard to read people just by some typed words on a screen. Our natural instinct is to read body language along with words, so online it is hard to convey the right message sometimes.
There was no question posed to me. You made a direct statement as to my emotional status, therefore I have responded to what I feel was an angry reaction from a believer who is angry that I pointed out an obvious fact.
How is it that you would conclude that pointing out facts is an emotional response? Conversely, it seems that the emotional response was yours, as your response seemed fueled by anger....at facts.
Instead of engaging the issue, you are discussing the way you perceive the emotional status of the participants.I have zero anger towards anyone and I am sorry if I came off that way. Please let me know what I can do better at and which posts I seemed angry. I am only here to learn about others. If I have made you upset, I apologize.
As for me noticing you have passion in your posts, our natural instinct is to read body language while someone is speaking, so reading words typed on a screen does not convey a message as well.
I concluded your emotions from CAPITALIZED letters and exclamation points!!!! I feel that having passion for something is a good thing, so I am not sure why you took it as negative. Passion means you have feelings and emotions and separates us from machines.So you are sorry you sounded emotional as you don't want to be portrayed as angry, but you pat him on the back for his apparent (according to you) emotional outburst?
I do. If someone is offended, then they might put up a wall. I am here to learn from everyone.
OK! No offense taken. Now I guess we can get back to the debate.
And actually you are right. I did not propose a questions to you.
You replied to my post.
- Spikologyposted 12 years ago0
It's hard to disagree with that kind of rationale. Kind of like saying water is wet because it is water.
Exactly. You will find nothing profound here. What is a piece of old chewing gum? Something to scrape off the bottom of my shoe. Ima regular ol Descartes.
The world would be a much different place without Christianity. One room school/churches that taught our ancestors for centuries how to read and write, even my parents and grandparents. Many people learned how to read and write because of one book. Hospitals were founded. Colleges were built. Charities were made.
Now imagine a world without it. Rampant illiteracy, sickness and no one to help.
We can talk about hypotheticals of how atheism would have picked up the slack. But their track record shows otherwise eg Enver Hoxa , Pol Pot,etc etc etc What else do they do? They hang out on religion forums amazing us all with inanity, sucking the life outa everyone, probably at the cost of a few IQ points.Thanks for the valuable input. Just remember - you guys put us back at least 1,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_ … ent_Greece
I still submit that we are all lab rats. Give me one piece of evidence or logic that proves me wrong. Anybody.
Ya know... I'm actually on the verge of reading the posts here...
Ya know... The refusal to discuss labratness indicates to me that this thread is dead.
Related Discussions
- 76
What happened to the separation of church and state?
by Rad Man 13 years ago
The USA is supposed to be a secular society, but the religion or faith of their politicians seems to be of upmost importance. Canada for example, is also a secular society, but their citizens don't care what faith their politicians practice. What happened to the separation of church and state?
- 55
What Is So Hard To Understand Separation of Church and State?
by Dan Harmon 10 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the same right. Unfortunately a court case resulted in the school board...
- 21
Why do people assume the worst of you the moment you mention religion on the Hub
by Zubair Ahmed 10 years ago
Why do people assume the worst of you the moment you mention religion on the Hub forums?There is no compulsion in religion so when we are having a debate on secular and religious topics why does it wind up the atheists. If you don't believe in religion then don't waste your time commenting on...
- 142
The United States was not founded on Christianity.
by Hokey 10 years ago
One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation...not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will...
- 164
Why do Christians always Speak about God?
by Sophia Angelique 14 years ago
I cannot remember a time when Christians have not invaded every conversation and every forum with their belief about Jesus Christ. Please note that Jews don't do it, Muslims don't do it, Hindus don't do it, Budhists don't do it, and as far as I can tell, I've never had a Mormon do it as well. I...
- 35
Does it make me close minded if I can't understand why people are atheists?
by HannahRiley 8 years ago
Does it make me close minded if I can't understand why people are atheists?I guess how is the better way to say it. I seriously question everything...like facts from history, ect...but for some reason Ive never questioned religion. I grew up in a Christian home, not a SUPER Christian home, but one...