Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 271 discussions (1695 posts)

90
Jewelsposted 15 years ago
My experience is that if you don't separate yourself out of the herd mentality, you never really understand the meaning of free will. A sleeper doesn't know he's a sleeper until he knows the difference. The definition of Awareness is when consciousness knows that it is conscious.
reply report
59
Evolution Guyposted 15 years ago
I do not care to share my personal details on a public forum. I am sorry your belief in god will not allow you to respect that decision.

I would also be interested in you quoting me making a "personal assault." All I have stated is that you are using semantics and your arguments are not rational in any way. I do not see how that is a "personal assault."
reply report
1. 61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have no respect for it whatsoever, in your case. Blame it on "god" if you like -- I'd prefer you blame it on Richard, as he likes to take responsibility for his decisions.
  
  You hide behind your anonymity so you can lash out at others and take absolutely no responsibility for anything you claim.
  
  You make sweeping pronouncements and dismissals as if you have some sort of background that allows that -- without giving one shred of evidence you have expertise beyond that of any average high school aged child.
  
  If this were a game of poker, I've just called and thrown in the chips on you. Show us your cards. I'm willing to bet you're not even Cool Hand Luke.
  
  What do you think? I am not reading this mess? I've been watching you closely. You've been my hobby for about 24 hours because I am bored.
  
  Now I'm bored with you.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So - being sarcastic is a personal assault?
  
  Glad I could entertain you for a while. What a shame your belief in a deity doesn't offer you more fulfillment than watching what I do. I always thought having a belief in a god would be very comforting. Apparently not.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Semantics, sweetheart. Semantics.
  
  Unfortunately, belief in a deity doesn't grant me magical powers so I can tell with whom I speak or why they act irresponsibly or hide behind a persona and can't own up to their own actions -- "I'm being sarcastic" (insert emoticon here).
  
  It doesn't afford me the ability to monitor my discussion thread 24 hours a day while someone hijacks it and insults everyone in sight, makes wild claims, and fails to offer one gossamar scrap of evidence anything they pretend to believe is "true" -- while demanding the same evidence from everyone else and yelling "irrational" at anyone who fails to play his game of Stand and Deliver.
  
  I offered an honest narrative of how I got to my beliefs. I offered two, count 'em, two arguments for the existence of God. In return, I see a lot of circularity, a lot of noise, a lot of nothing from you. YOU in particular.
  
  Which is the only reason you showed up here and keep visiting. In my naivete, I assumed it would be possible to have adult conversation here -- maybe with some wit, a few ripostes, a lot of disagreement, but at least discussion on an adult level. What I got from you was the equivalent of a child walking into the middle of a dinner party conversation, dropping his pants, relieving himself in the middle of the living room floor and yelling, "Look at me! Look at me!"
  
  Alright. Stage is yours. Do you have any rational arguments to offer to back up ONE claim you have made -- that you understand the theory of evolution and what it explains; that you understand what it means to say the very concept of God is an irrational concept; that sarcasm directed toward a person is the very definition of a personal insult?
  
  Spotlight's on you. Shine, baby, shine. Maybe we can get you a part in the next High School Musical if you do well.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I seem to be having trouble getting through to you. Not sure why, but I will try again. Please do not construe this as a "personal assault."
  
  What I do or do not believe or understand about evolution has absolutely nothing to do with your claim.
  
  You are the one that started a discussion thread and invited people to comment.
  
  You are the one making the claim that there is a god and you have a rational argument in favor..
  
  You are the one that has to back it up with a rational argument.
  
  You have not done so.
  
  The spotlight has always been on you - and you are constantly trying to deflect it away using semantics.
  
  Any time you can make a rational argument that does not rely on "reason does have its limits" and therefore must move into non-reasonable, un-reasonable or ir-rational arguments I will rebut it for you.
  
  All you baby - back up your claims or accept the fact that your beliefs are not based on rationality.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not doing your leg work for you again.
  
  I posted 2 (two) arguments for the existence of God. I posted the second since you dismissed the first without showing you have the capacity to, well, read at the level of someone who allegedly went to grad school.
  
  Yes, I made the initial post. No, it was not an argument. It was a claim and involved assertions. It also made an extra set of claims, pretty arrogantly, if you paid attention: If you haven't done an in-depth study of theology and philosophy, in school or on your own, I sincerely doubt you have anything of value RATIONALLY to say on the subject of whether God exists or whether religion is senseless.
  
  The people who come here and admit, readily, that they have no rational proof and no rational arguments to support their beliefs are at least honest; and it does them no harm to lack the rational proofs.
  
  Unfortunately for you, even though you decided it was incumbent upon me to show rational arguments can be made for the existence of God -- and I did so, twice -- in order for you to respond, you will have to take a stand somewhere. It isn't enough to pick my arguments apart to reasonably claim I'm irrational; you will have to prove I'm irrational.
  
  Although my continuing to talk to you does suggest I have a strong irrational streak.
  
  You say in your profile you want to teach all these ignorant believers some truth -- well, get crackin'. Teach away. Show me those 8 years in college were not spent on Nintendo and Boone's Farm.
  
  So far, the only thing I can tell about your education is that you learned the word "semantics," but not how to apply it; you learned how to read, but not interpret; you don't know simple definitions of words like "logic" or "God" and don't know how to use a dictionary or thesaurus; and you don't have the slightest clue about the history of philosophy or philosophy of science.
  
  But if you aren't going to prove you know anything, you don't need to, do you?
  
  Your writing style is also nearly identical to another persona wandering the boards. Maybe you went to the same community college?
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Personal insults aside - I have read everything you have written and no where has there been a rational argument for any claim regarding the existence of a god. Merely asserting that something is rational will not make it so.
  
  Any time you care to do so, I will offer an argument against it. As for your usage of the terms "rational" and "work," I think you need a better dictionary that the one you are currently using.
  
  You certainly are a Master of Semantics though......
  
  I stand by the answer I first gave you (which you found unacceptable).
  
  "Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?"
  
  No.
  
  And if you do not want yes or no answers - you should not ask yes or no questions.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're right. An argument, to be rational, has to follow certain formal structures. "Rational" does not equal "true." Calling something rational does not mean, automatically, that it is true, and calling something untrue hardly entails it's irrational.
  
  You need to sue your college for the abysmal level of education it sold you.
  
  Page 12. Waiting on little ol' you.
  
  Think I lifted them from Aristotle.
  
  Glad one of us mastered **something.**
  
  Go look up "rhetorical question." Congratulate yourself on learnng a subtle new concept today.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Continuing to insult my intelligence is not really achieving a great deal. And I really do suggest a different dictionary. Seeing as you answered your own "rhetorical question."
  
  Do you see the Irony!
  
  And I think you will find my response to your "rational argument" also on page 12. There - I did the legwork for you.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't answer the second argument on page 12.
  
  Just saying that talking about the concept of God = assuming God exists is quite a leap. It is not a good response unless you +show+ evidence to support your assertion.
  
  I could begin an argument saying "The squared circle necessarily exists." That's a premise. There's all kinds of things wrong with it, from squared circles being self-contradictory to whether particular ways of being exist necessarily and what it means "to exist necessarily."
  
  But beginning any argument with a premise, no matter how much one dislikes the premise, is not the same as "assuming the premise is actually true" or "asserting the truth of the premise," and so on. In logic, it is assumed when making claims in an argument that the word "if" precedes a premise -- as in
  
  (IF) The squared circles necessarily exists (. . .)
  
  All a rational argument of this type does is say, in essence: "IF we take these premises, and IF they are true, THEN this is the conclusion, and the conclusion MUST be true."
  
  Making snide comments that someone has made a definition you dislike -- "God is that than which nothing greater can be imagined," "God is existence," "God's existence is necessary," "Existence is necessary" -- proves nothing about the argument, and it hardly shows the argument is an irrational one; being snide just proves you don't like the argument and that, well, you are snide.
  
  Your approach does not address the argument, any argument. It side-steps it. It keeps you from having to face it.
  
  And this leads me to posit two conclusions:
  
  1. You really don't know what you're talking about.None of this fits neatly into what you read on some debating website for how to "defeat religionists," so you're not sure what to do besides repeat the same nonsensical, off the mark criticisms you've memorized that would apply to some other arguments, but not mine.
  
  or
  
  2. You're too lazy to read the arguments and analyze them. As you have already dismissed them in your mind, no matter what I say, you see reading any argument for the existence of God as a waste of your time and beneath you. Why be bothered? You already know all the answers. So you dismiss any offering handed to you and keep repeating "NO, you can't be rational, you disagree with me," and think that really amounts to much by way of a rational response.
  
  *****
  
  By the way, a rhetorical question is one which the questioner often answers himself, out loud. It guides the conversation.
  
  *****
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Silly me - I should have known you had your own private definition for that term.
  
  3. You have not made an argument. Any argument.
  
  Assuming god exists is the entire basis of your "argument." Not that you are making an argument or anything. Or have an agenda. Or share your beliefs unless asked. Or start threads for a fight. Or anything like that.
  
  Any time you care to make a rational argument, I will respond. You have not yet done so. Keep on repeating the same insults over and over and over is getting a little old though.
  reply report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Richard VanIngram,
  
  Your arguments are based on solid grounds. Are you a philosopher or a professor of logic?
  
  Though I personally believe in God (however, not as a creator) I loved your arguments and the way it is done.
  
  You seem to be very rational and like to rationalize the forum thread.
  
  Thanks a lot.
  Jyoti Kothari
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I value your opinion JYOTI KOTHARI and if you say that saying I am lazy is rational, then it must be right. But your god did not create us? Now I am confused. What use is your god?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Government control to group belief into one.
  
  "If they all believe the same, they will all act the same"
  
  My quote.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh great and enlightened scion of Parris Island, you speak in an utterly cryptic fashion.
  
  1) What is the name of this "government" and where, physically, is it located?
  
  2) In what year did it write this great work of "mind control" you keep refering to?
  
  Quickly -- relieve me of my darkness.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are brilliant aren't you. So much more intelligent than the ignorant marine.
  
  Ignorant one, any grouped belief is a government. Go study more.
  
  Answer my question brilliant professor. What is good about a grouped belief?
  
  Now flag my question for making you look like the idiot you are. Arrogance does not equal intelligence.
  
  Neither does a title.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Poor, poor pitiful me. . ."
  
  Don't hide behind the uniform. You're talking as an individual here, not as a functionary of a homogenous GROUP serving a GOVERNMENT.
  
  Great. Another person here who can't give a straight answer to simple questions.
  
  I am about to decide I have been transmogrophied into Alice and this is the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you not understand that any grouped belief is a government. The marines are a government within themselves. Hubpages is a government. Is this out of your comprehension?
  
  Nice philosiphical avatar picture, makes you look brilliant!
  
  Image is everything right?
  
  Now answer my question brilliant one. What is good about a grouped belief?
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  1) It is inevitable.
  
  2) It is necessary to live with others. For example -- language rests on beliefs common to a group -- all cultural products do -- and they make the human form of existence possible.
  
  3) Without beliefs common to groups of people, humans would die off within a generation or two. Remember, anything more than a single person is a group, and even negotiating to have sex and reproduce requires two people, and then agreeing to raise the child required at least one partent and child.
  
  4) Group beliefs keep us from killing one another off indiscriminantly, stealing one another blind, the allow us to plan for the future, share and preserve the past, to learn, develop sciences and various practical arts, live in relative peace, . . . (I can keep listing, but I think you're clever enough to catch on).
  
  Go read Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" and get back to me. You'd probably even like it. Or look up "social contract theory" in ethics if you're not a book person, as books might magically steal the uniqueness of your ego, somehow.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  1. Do you want to challenge that I have an individual belief if you think it's "inevitable" to have a grouped belief?
  
  2. How do you have to believe the same to live with others? Do you have to use language to live with others? How about mutes?
  
  3. You are partly right on this one. We must have grouped believers to be followers and sacrifice for individuals. So, grouped belief is partly necessary.
  
  4. You are right on this one as well. The same is 3. We must have groups of followers to sacrifice for individuals. If there were no followers, there would be no one to work.
  
  I don't need book references when I have brilliant minds as your own to learn from on hubpages. Thanks for answering my questions.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  1. You share some beliefs with at least some groups: You speak English, meaning, not only to you unconsciously hold many, many grammatical beliefs in common with English speakers, but you also have inherited many, many cultural beliefs through words with which you think and are possibly unaware. You did not make up the English language -- you inherited it. And as william S. Burroughs once said, "Language is a virus."
  
  Aside from that, much of what you say about "herds" and "individuals" sounds like a straight lift from a bad reading of Nietzsche, a good reading of Ayn Rand, or a bored afternoon as a teen reading Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible."
  
  2. Mute people have language -- there is sign language and body language. And the there's writing and symbols. In fact, even with speaking people, the greater part of communication is non-verbal. I didn't make that up, by the way.
  
  3, & 4 - see references to Nietzsche, Rand, and LaVey above.
  
  5. A little trip to the library might help expand that mind a bit.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  1. Drawing influences for belief is not the same as reading from a script. A mind doesn't need books to learn. The mind can learn through individual thought and debate. I'm sure your brilliant mind aleady knows this over an ignorant marine.
  
  2. You are nit picking. Just because someone uses a grouped language doesn't mean they should all believe as 1.
  
  4. Individual thought and debate.
  
  5. Reading the same book over and over will continue to limit your self acclaimed brilliant philisophical mind.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you or are you not a Marine? Earlier you jumped me for assuming you were and now you are unhappy with me because you seem to think I've implied Marines are unintelligent in some way. Please, do make up your atomisticially individual mind!
  
  And, no, a mind doesn't need books to learn. But a mind without books is impoverished and cuts itself off from its inheritence and birthright, which is history. Otherwise, one's individual mind keeps repeating errors from the past as if it has made some monumental discoveries -- and doesn't realize the ideas it supports were dead and moldering in the ground 70 years before it was born, and for good reason.
  
  I am talking your words and their ramifications seriously.
  
  No, but it means they WILL believe many things in common, and will have to -- and some of the things they believe in common they absolutely should -- they should all believe murder is wrong, for example.
  
  What's that? Making up your own language and talking with yourself in it?!
  
  For an individualist, you sure are unhappy because I have a sense of self. Is it threatening to you? Is mean old Mr. Philosopher scary to the Marine-who-doesn't-like-the-Marines-but-is-a-Marine-maybe-but-he-ain't-tellin'-and-can't-give-straight-answers-because-that's-too-common? "How long, O Lord"? (Rhetorical question which I will not answer to avoid confusing those who learn rhetoric and grammar and usage from Wikipedia; and a Biblical quote to show I can't think on my own).
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have already answered this question earlier in the thread. Just like a believer mind to pick and choose what to read. I am a former marine.
  
  You can learn from history on a large scale without seeing all of the details from a small scale. A mind can learn far more from individual thinking and debate than it can from guided group learning or reading in a classroom.
  
  Murder is wrong is both moral and logical. It doesn't take a divine scripture to understand this. Murder is contradiction to life. Did you need a scripture to peice that together?
  
  Individual thought is developing individual thoughts without fear or guidance/grouped belief. Debate is argueing the individual thoughts you have developed with others. Wow, I figured an educated man as yourself would already know this. Back to the books.
  
  You have a grouped belief which is a contradiction to individualism. Why have a human mind when you limit it's belief to a grouped belief? Just trying to create some self awareness like others your faith has shot down.
  report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The book is only tool of information. Some are good some are not.
  I am sad for insulting others.
  report
  59
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  With all due respect, I think that reeks of ignorance. As long as there is a need for communication, there is a need for language. Signed languages are languages, too, and a deaf or mute child who's never been taught how to sign will actually make up his or her own sign language in an effort to communicate.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, I almost missed your brilliant assumption!
  
  You are such a brilliant professor to be learned from.
  
  Assume I am still in the Marines because of my nickname! Brilliant assumption. Wrong again.
  
  I'm starting to think you are only brilliant in your avatar image.
  
  What else do you have for the ignorant marine?
  report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  God is universal observer. Any human being can be upgraded to the status of God by developing his or her own virtue.
  
  He or she need not to create anything because the universe is eternal, beginning less and endless. All living beings have some or another kind of knowledge and wisdom. If one develops ones wisdom to ultimate level and become tranquil will become God.
  
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  report
  61
  atomswifeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  yeah thats what satan thought too. lol
  Humans are just that, human. We have no way to become gods. We are fallible and our intelligence is limited to only what The God gave us. Intelligence or "knowledge" does not equate to godliness.
  report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry JYOTI KOTHARI - your vision of god is evil and wrong. No matter that the bible can more easily be understood if directed inwards - the sheeple rely on an external god that exists outside of themselves. With magical powers of creation from nothing.
  
  This sheeple will explain why the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ.
  
  You can ignore the apparent lack of education - she has the TRUTH for you. lol
  report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bible is not the only religious book. There are many religions and faith exists in the world. There are prophets, spiritual persons who have preached in different ways.
  
  I believe in Jainism and have faith on Lord Mahavira and other Tirthankar. I do not challenge your faith and expect the same from you.
  
  Even if you do not honor my faith I will not mind because that our Lord taught us. Taught us to remain tranquil.
  
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Jyoti Kothari
  
  You are welcome here, most welcome. I have a great deal of respect for Jainism and Jains -- those who follow your path. You are a decent, peace-loving people, a people who spurn violence and encorage intellectual pursuits, as I recall. I am honored that you came to this thread and shared something of your beliefs with us.
  
  Please continue to speak. One cannot but be enriched by exposure to those of different beliefs.
  
  Thank you,
  
  Richard Van Ingram
  report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Richard for your generosity and openness. All forums are open for all. People of different faith, belief, culture and place come and express their views here in hubpages forum.
  It is not meant for a particular belief or faith.
  
  Honoring each others view of point is what needed. I value your opinion and joining your fan club.
  
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, very much, Jyoti Kothari. I joined yours, as well.
  report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  report
  61
  atomswifeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  this is true
  mans education of what Mark? Mans notion of salvation is mute as Jesus is the only way.
  
  Had to edit this one point you made though Mark, Our God is not only external but internal as well. He does dwell in and among us
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is believing you are a prophet rational?
  report
  58
  Indian ladyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who has the truth? I want to know.
  
  Thanks,
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The truth is not absolute.
  report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  nobody has.The truth is an absolute mirage.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No one has the truth. It isn't anyone's property.
  
  We are probably in agreement somewhat, Indian Lady.
  
  If we are very fortunate, I think the truth comes to possess us little by little when we open ourselves to it by the use of our minds and by spiritual "technologies" such as prayer and meditation, and by seeking.
  report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not Satan but what Indian philosophers thought and preached even long before Bible. Both lord Mahavira and Lord Buddha preached the same thing.
  
  Will you dare to say them Satan?
  
  You can live with your faith and I have no objection to that. However, it is better to honor others faith.
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you have honor, faith, and emotions tied into your belief system? Because this is what your dependent mind was trained to do to protect your faith.
  
  Or, do you have a different answer for why you believe in absolutes?
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is no intelligence or knowledge in your grouped belief of absolutes. You contradict having an individual mind. Protect the faith.
  report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Kothari, If you`re about to be upgraded to god anytime soon,How about putting me on top of the list for a substantial increase in disability pay. After nearly 40 years of consistent work, I don`t think I`m drawing enough.
  report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is not really possible because we do not believe on a creator God.
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you the enlightened prophet? People would take you as credible if you didn't speak in absolutes. Do you know all answers of the universe? Maybe you will know them when you are promoted to a God. Keep working. Then you can speak in absolutes with credibility. Didn't you read the previous post's on absolutes? Stop picking and choosing what to read. This is why you believe in absolutes. Absolutes is arrogance.
  report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Kothari,your use of the term god is universal, clarify that usage.
  report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Dear, Please read the question what I answered in this post and you will feel that I am not wrong nor talking in absolute terms. I had been asked to explain my faith and belief and I answered in that way.
  
  Any one, including me and you can be upgraded to a prophet or even to a God according to the philosophy of Jainism. I believe in.
  It is better to observe before commenting harsh. Anyway, this does not offend me. I love discussions with open mind where any one is free to express his or her view.
  
  Thanks for taking a note of my comment.
  
  Jyoti Kothari
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, sir!
  
  I taught philosophy at two universities for the past 4 years. I enjoyed it very much. I didn't have tenure and state budget cuts bagan to eat away at my livlihood, so I moved to another state here in the US and started again -- I decided to pick up my writing and illustration career for awhile while I have some time.
  
  All I claim is I made attempts at rational argumentation. I am not sure at all I have air-tight arguments -- but I do have rational ones; they conform to the rules of informal logic and I attempted to sort out inconsistancies in my premises and argue for their truthfulness.
  
  I appreciate that you read what I wrote and accepted it in the spirit I intended.
  
  Again, thank you,
  
  RVI
  reply report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really. You must be pretty confident in your personal set of beliefs. If any one of them is the least bit irrational does that make you an irrational person? Or do you only have this view of the God folk? Are all other people's issues involving logic and reason compartmentally judged against an individual?
  
  e.g.
  He's afraid of the dark - that is something irrational about him but he did solve that time travel thing so I'll cut him some slack there.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I never claimed to be rational. Where on earth did you get that idea? I thought we were discussing a belief in a god as being rational or not? No - silly me.
  
  I have done thousands of irrational things and can claim to be as intermittently irrational as the next person. I do not claim that my desire to jump out of airplanes on occasion is rational.
  
  What we are really discussing is the fact that your need to believe in a god is not a rational one.
  
  Why are your trying to rationalize it? Do you think that will make it come true?
  reply report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  RVA's Q: Can a rational individual believe in God?
  Your A: No
  
  I presumed by this you meant that the individual who believes is God isn't rational. It may have slipped past you but that's been the sentiment of a few respondents.
  
  It should be clear by now I am not attempting to rationalize belief in a creator.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I answered the question posed.
  
  What you then presumed I meant afterward is beside the point. A belief in a god is not a rational belief. It requires a suspension of disbelief well beyond my capabilities. Therefore a rational individual can not believe in god. There is no evidence for such a belief - and to make a rational decision, there must be some sort of reasoning involved other than the reasoning suggested by the OP which involves the suspension of reason.
  
  What are you attempting to rationalize? 100% total and utter lack of proof in a creator and you still argue that it is just the same as the proof for evolution? Seems like you are trying to rationalize your belief in a creator to me.
  reply report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Was i being presumptuous or did you say the person was irrational?
  
  I am saying that a little faith in anything is faith. Do you know? or are you pretty sure? About every detail? Or just the major issues?
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I understand what you are saying perfectly well. You are attempting to rationalize your belief in a creator by comparing is as being exactly the same as having faith that evolution happens.
  
  Despite the mountains of evidence for evolution and the 100% lack of evidence to support your beliefs.
  
  This is where the irrational part comes in.
  report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No again. You must accept that I am not rationalizing a creator. I am questioning your faith in what you clearly do not know nor understand.
  
  It is dishonest for the most saavy Darwinist or calloused athiest to suggest that they have all of the answers to all of the questions of origins. We all trust in someone or some unknown something at some time. If we were to add up all the question marks over your head how much faith could we measure that you have invested in other's ideas (true or false) and even worse in the great black box out there?
  
  You are as much a person of faith as the rest of us. I am always amazed at the hubris of Atheists. Forget proving your position or evangelizing the lost sheep. I'm not trying to convince there is a God. I am trying to get you to admit that your paradigm can't deal with doubt and the unknown the same as mine. You need to invest blind faith in your paradigm at times. you just hate to have to admit it.
  report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said.......
  
  I do not need to invest blind faith in anything. I am quite happy to say - "This is the best explanation we have at the moment, and I will discard it if a better one comes along or we learn something new in the future."
  
  That will not change the fact that there is mountains of proof that evolution happens and has been happening since the earth first saw life as we understand that term to mean.
  
  "Amazed at the hubris of atheists?" Oh what - you mean - denying god like that?
  
  See where the irrational part comes in?........
  report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ouch. Mountains of "proof" built on what you admittedly don't know. That doesn't cause you to question the validity of the mountain? Your not suggesting that major unknowns in the early stages of evolution are dismissible because of a preponderance of later evidence that fits so nicely into the paradigm? Your rationale is looking rather circular.
  report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Repeating the same mantra over and over and over like a prayer will not make it come true.
  
  There is a rational approach to science that you are choosing to ignore. You are also choosing to not bother presenting any evidence for your case that a god breathed life into a handful of dust 6,000 years ago.
  
  If you want to disprove most of the major sciences' theories - I hate to break it to you - but you sort of have to have some evidence.
  
  Sorry about that. Too bad huh? Just when you thought you had the entire scientific community about to crumble. Not that you are trying to justify your beliefs or anything. Oh no. Nothing like that.
  
  I think it is great that your belief in god offers you so much comfort that you need to not rationalize and not justify it in any way.
  
  Have you considered changing religions? Maybe a different one might help.
  report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  By the way what I'd like to be discussing is those earliest life forms. Single celled bacteria and the like. I would like a bona fide biologist to explain something to me that I don't understand about these creatures.
  
  They were perfectly adapted to their environment. Hot, cold, wet, dry, freeze them, thaw them, they keep going. So, what was the evolutionary force of change known to have pushed them into more complex and fragile and less fit for survival creatures? (Creatures like you or better me.)
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The best explanation we have at the moment is that oxygenation of the atmosphere was the trigger, once it reached a certain level, causing more complex creatures that used oxygen in their metabolism to become dominant.
  
  But - you do not believe evolution happens - so why even ask the question? Oh - yes - this is the theoretical part with no absolute proof that means your belief in an invisible god that breathed life into a handful of dust a few thousand years ago is perfectly rational, and we can safely ignore the fossil records and geological evidence in favor of that........
  
  Or are you a "a day could mean millions of years" sort of religionist?
  reply report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm a six day creationist.
  
  I ask the question to point out that your answer is at best theoretical and therefore unknown. At worst it's completely contrived BECAUSE IT'S UNKNOWN. You can't show it to me. You can't give me evidence of it. You want to believe the theory so you must trust in it. Trust in your paradigm but realize that it's trust.
  
  If an archaeologist finds an artifact with a curved edge that looks like it could be a plate in a layer right next to other more complete pieces he will not say that it's a plate. That's because they have seen the presumption of shape based on relative artifacts debunked so often that they are always aware of what they don't know. Perhaps the artifact is made of the same material as the plate but is scalloped. Or perhaps it was a poorly produced tray that was trashed by the potter. They weren't there, so they don't know, so they don't trust in their theory they label it and throw it on the pile of unknowns. That's science without faith.
  
  Yours is science with a lot of faith.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry your beliefs have been proven worthless. Attacking scientific evidence will not make you feel any better. Nor will it make your god appear. Nor will it make your last statement come true.
  
  Sorry. Your life has been wasted to this point.
  
  But - it is not too late. If you just open your mind, the truth will set you free.......
  report
  0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Free indeed. What Yeshua was saying (jn. 8:32) was that if you hold to His teaching it will set you free and stop hurting you.
  
  Your response was expected.
  report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Attack is not against science but against pseudoscience and SciFi.
  report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  5000 years ago there was much higher Oxygen pressure than we have it now. The people were healthier. The venoms did not affected them (snakes, spiders, scorpions etc). The species were much better on then today. It is against evolution theory.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's right - I forgot about the proof that people were immune to snake bites..........
  
  Good grief!
  
  So - you think there is climate change going on then? Must have been a LOT more oxygen to live 800 years.
  report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Higher Oxygen pressure causes not only Erythrocytes (red corpuscles) higher saturation but also plasma. In Texas Dr. Karl Baugh cared experiments on.
  During the Noah flood the water jet out from the earth high to sky and interrupted the canapé around the earth. This is why we have increased radiation exposure.
  See God did not created evil and poisonous snake to harm us
  report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have converted me to jeebus with your rational explanation and the proof you provided. I especially liked the proof that the canapé was interrupted.
  
  It all makes so much more sense now. I cannot imagine why I thought fossils proved evolution happened. What a fool I have been.
  
  Thank you so much.
  
  Praise Jeebus!!!
  report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Poorly informed evolutionists have no facts always making offensive words ala Mark.
  My comment was just footnotes which was interesting to me to find.
  report
61
XTASISposted 15 years ago
This thread is a farse!
The answer to the OP is : NO. And that's it. You can't argue against Logic.
reply report
69
JulietduPreezposted 15 years ago
I'd question what "rational" is?
reply report
1. 60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  to use reason and logic in your thinking. If you like to question it ,go ahead. Tell everybody what it is for you ,then.
  reply report
2. 61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Asking this question is probably the most "Rational" thing I've seen on this board -- seriously.
  
  Reason does of can involve logic, both formal and informal or argumentative logic -- that is one form of reason. Actually, to get picky, formal and informal logics are probably two different uses of reason.
  
  Reason also involves wonder and asking questions.
  
  Reason involves doubt and making problems of things we take for granted so we can explore them.
  
  Reason involves analysis AND synthesis -- taking things apart and showing how they go together into wholes.
  
  Reason involves making theories and being able to suspend belief in theories long enough to witness the raw phenomena the theories were created to explain so that we don't confuse raw experience with overlays of human explanations about invisible or unavailable causes for the raw experiences.
  
  Reason involves creativity and imagination.
  
  And so on.
  
  Reason is a function of human life -- it allows us to live in a human way, it is the capacity that allow us our freedom and makes demands on us at the same time -- it grants us freedom from compulsion yet demands we spend the freedom living up to standards, and not just any standards.
  
  It's a far more complicated subject than the answer "be logical" suggests.
  reply report
0
Scott.Lifeposted 15 years ago
I spent the night researching evolution, religion, and science, on Wiki...now I need for everyone to agree on a definition of God before we can disprove it, then admit Darwin was Agnostic, not Atheist, then remember that even evolution admits it runs into trouble when it comes to explaining the origin of life itself, as per how it all began in the very beginning. Then we can run around in circles for another 8 hours still arguing and have spent yet another day debating life instead of living it... That being said, I love you guys you always give me inspiration to examine more of the world around me and admit that beyond my education and experience there are still things I just don't know.
reply report
1. 61
  magdielqrposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's hard not to believe everything was created by God. Science can create multiple theories will never be able to prove his theories.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Here, throw a new question in that gets to the root of the biblical God.

What is your purpose for agreeing with a 1 belief system? What seperates a 1 belief system from animals?
reply report
60
JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years ago
Hi,
I am quite agree that every one has faith in one or other topic and person.

How many people experiment? They are dependent on others experiment. That itself shows faith on other people.

Scientists often debate on evolution. Theory of Darwin was challenged by mutation theory.

Who has not experienced God may or may not believe on him. It is his personal choice.

What if one has experienced him? Do we believe on him or not?

Accepting illogical things is irrational and we must not forget that denying some thing without experiment is also irrational.

Thanks,
Jyoti Kothari
reply report
61
milynch43posted 15 years ago
Some people believe in evolution because its based on science and they say they can see the evidence. One problem with evolution is it still can’t explain the beginning ( Big bang). The universe and on a much smaller scale nature is so perfectly balanced that to say this all happened by chance is the more difficult theory to believe. Science estimates the age of the universe may be as old as 15 billion years. It started with the “ Big Bang ” and the universe was formed and gradually life evolved on some planets. I’m not a scientist or mathematician but what are the odds of the universe consisting of countless objects finding there place in such a precise manner by accident. If some want to say the universe is chaotic in form that couldn’t be farther from the truth. It’s the perfect balance and the constants that exist is what allows us to launch satellites and probes to the distance parts of our solar system and beyond with such accuracy.

Christian Fundamentalists want to teach that everything was created in 7 literal days when in fact the Bible doesn’t teach this. The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Many bible scholars agree that is separate from the creative days recorded a few verses later. Secondly the account was written in Hebrew. The word “yom” meaning day has multiple applications in reference to time. See below:

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

The bible says nothing to contradict the age of the earth or the universe according to science and there is no reason the two theories can’t coexist. No matter what theory you believe in there had to be an absolute beginning. The question is, do think it happened by chance or that a supreme power of sort was behind it.
reply report
1. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. What about the third possibility?
  
  Looking forward to you explaining to the 6 day wonder people.
  
  Evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning. After all the answer to that one is easy - A magical super being made us from dust. Everyone knows this and the proof is all around.
  
  Does the "supreme power" option happen to have a name and did he write a book for me to read?
  reply report
  61
  milynch43posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really? What does evaluation attempt to explain if not our origin? I used the term supreme power to be neutral. My post was not a religious one but rather a look at both sides. Obviously you are closed minded and not capable of an inelegant reply. Only sarcasm.
  reply report
2. 61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very good comment, thanks. I personally believe in Pre-Adamic time. It could be billion years. The recreation of chaotic state was done in 6 days. Yes "YOM" is day and is also a period. But the Bible always say "YOM" means 24 hrs day. There is specifically saying and "it was evening" and then "morning" day one... Huge periods have not evening or morning.
  Recreation happend 6000 years ago.
  I believe in Big Noise, referred as Big Bank. The reason is that in short time to clean the mess is associated with noise. But Big bank I mean explosion never make organize system. It make only more "matter" chaos. Somebody say an explosion in printing building does not produce the book. Thanks.
  reply report
72
Cagsilposted 15 years ago
Wow!

Point missed, nevermind.
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Go research individualism. It's not found in your divine book of belief.
reply report
59
Valerie Fposted 15 years ago
What else are we to assume? If you go by the username "Marinealways," it only makes sense that people assume that you are still a Marine or at least your loyalty still lies with the USMC.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I keep a marine work ethic, not a marine belief system. There is no individuality in a marine. They sacrifice individuality when they join.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What Marine Corps did you join? I'm glad I never took you to combat, this Corps you speak of would have got me killed, I relied on the individuals in my platoon to be free thinkers and self motivated in order to function without supervision or constant attention.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I never heard of an army that functions without supervision or attention. what are generals for, then? Armies act as a corp, if not it would be chaotic.
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  [/b]
  
  i always thought that too. i mean that seems to be the whole point of the rigors of boot camp...to train people to follow orders and surrender their individuality.
  
  maybe i watch too many 'Full Metal Jacket' movies
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes you do watch too many movies soldiers are not brainwashed idiots I am a little disappointed in some of you who up until now I have had the utmost respect for, and now you're demeaning soldiers based on popular myth and a lack of personal experience. That seems totally rational.
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  sorry Scott. i certainly didn't mean to demean any soldiers. (plus there were some cool guys in there - Pvt. Joker, for example). i am always the first to thank a soldier for his or her service and sacrifice, and even sponsor a Marine! that was the only war movie i could think of. i don't think all soldiers are like the one depicted by Pvt. Pyle.
  
  p.s. i didn't use the term "brainwashing". i believe i said that my perception of boot camp was "to train people to follow orders and surrender their individuality". sorry if i misunderstood what boot camp's intentions were. i have never served in the military so yes in that part of it i am woefully ignorant and uninformed.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are right no one has implied brainwashing, but there is no surerendering of individuality. This is however a common complaint of those who are discharged from boot camp or view this as the sum total of training, when in fact boot camp is merely the beginning of any soldier or Marines training afterwords there are months of schooling that emphasize using and adapting individual strengths and abilities. The whole emphasis on my training as an NCO was to learn to think more effectively and operate independently. The same aspects that might unite any unit together are those that bring society together, a common goal to survive and prosper.
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  thanks for explaining that. i understand a lot more now!
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  She is right. Don't put words in peoples mouths. The statement was that military sacrifice individualism for a grouped belief. Don't twist it so you look hurt.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Look who's talking when you have something original with an actual point to say I'll listen you can't answer anyone's questions you thumb through the past threads and ride other people's logic. Go talk to yourself at least you'll have someone to agree with and feel sorry for you.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Something original?
  
  I think me saying that your belief has nothing to do with a creator and was simply created to keep you from acting like animals with a 1 belief system is pretty original.
  
  Who did I copy this from?
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just about every atheistic view I have read on these forums in the past 5 weeks. All you've done is reword it but if you'd like I'll give you a cookie for creativity....Didn't you just get through saying tantrum and you have the same belief, now its an original one again, make up your mind, oh wait if you actually share a belief with someone else that would make you a believer in a group....that's not good for the old argument
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  At least your faith granted me a cookie. That has to count for something. Thank You
  
  I'm not an atheist, good try at titling my belief.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So you do believe in God, now I am confused here we go again.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not the biblical God. I don't rule out the possibility of a creator when I don't know. It would be an assumption. I don't know why the human mind can and wants to individualize when an animal mind is simply content with it's scripted life.
  report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How is it that you assume I believe or accept the biblical God when I have never discussed it with you, yet you criticize my assumptions of you while generalizing me.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you deny this, you are a liar and you are going to hell.
  
  How did I know? Because you were offended that I made a generalized statement about believers and made an emotional statement in return.
  
  Your belief is locked in with emotions. An assumption isn't an assumption when it's correct. Do you not believe the bible?
  report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  this is true I do have an emotional response for anyone that attempts to brow beat people who disagree with them, just as I have have defended you on more then one occasion from condemnational fanatics that have told you that you were lost and deluded. As for whether I'm going to hell, I have a hard time believing that's for you to decide, be careful before you go too far my friend. Everything about your argument has been emotional and reactive. I have not once attacked your beliefs religious or otherwise but pointed out inconsistencies in your argument and theorizing based on personal attacks and insults.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you are an honest man you will answer. Do you believe the bible?
  report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I answered this question to you last night, my answer has not changed since then. How does that have anything to do with defending people's right to disagree....and if you were honest you'd answer all of us about your time in the service and credentials, but you won't.You still have not told me or anyone what Government created this God, You can't even decide if you're agnostic, atheist, or a new view all together. You rail against group belief then try to align yourself with the beliefs of a group that disagree with believers, who you have yet to answer me about what that word even means and that was a question asked a week ago.... see what I just did was answer a question with a question wrapped in an accusation welcome to what it's like to talk to you on the forums, nothing gets answered.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have already said, any grouped belief is a government. The marines are a grouped belief. The marines are a government within themselves. 1 grouped belief for control = ridding individuals. 1 mind = 1 team = 1 belief.
  
  I did 4 years active duty, 0811 with a good conduct medal and an honerable discharge. I got out an E-4 Corporal.
  
  I have no set belief. I seek a belief like everyone else, but nothing does the trick. I will not find a group to believe simply to be content when no groups have answers. Nothing or no one answers my questions. The bible doesn't come close. I'm not on any grouped belief or unbeliefs team. Neither answers my questions.
  report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe when you realize the belief and answers you seek are not outside you but in, and stop looking for them you'll find the real answer and I'm not talking about God, the Bible, or religion either, these are not answers but the road to more questions. The logical, rational conclusion to existence, creation, and life is staring you in the face and it is rooted in physics, and backed up by evolution. Religion, and science over complicate a simple issue.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I did look in. I don't agree with any grouped belief. I believe it contradicts inividualism. That may be absolute. What is the simple answer?
  report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The simple answer is that you have to just keep looking in, and delving deeper until you can drown out all outside voices and influences, then take a moment to examine what you find there. I will never be complete or satisfied with the answers the world gives me and I keep looking for more. Knowledge changes continually and so do beliefs. I am comfortable with many beliefs and religions because I see the inherent good in many things and that the variety is strength and freedom of movement and growth. Whatever I feel about God, or believe about the universe is an aspect of me not the definition of it, and I often act outside my beliefs and even morals, as the TRUTH is sometimes its not about what's wrong or Right but what has to be done. Were i to hold a literal view of the bible and religion it would be hard to cope with the realities of life but as I know religion is a creation of man, and not the same as faith I can move beyond the static limits of any book or religion.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  All of the outside voices tell me to follow a belief. You have seen it on this thread. I don't listen to them. I completely change my opinion and idea of you after reading this comment. I definately think you have an individual mind. I also think it is very humble of you to admit that you don't know all of the answers and aren't limited to a 1 belief system. Thank You for adding your thoughts.
  report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What do you think will eliminate the evil?
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Common Ground. Those that believe they are favored by a divine being for their 1 system belief are a contradiction to common ground and an individual mind.
  
  I wanted to add. This was an excellent question and one I haven't thought about in depth. I try to give credit when credit is due. A mind trapped in belief does have potential of individual thought. Good question.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I bestow upon you the title of: Confused.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And your title should be: "Unconscious"
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sold.
  report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I prefer the term free to change my beliefs whenever appropriate or beneficial......For Clarification @Tantrum, what exactly are your beliefs? Atheistic, Agnostic, Humanist?
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ludwig Fuerbach.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Excellent. I don't read books genius. More assumptions from the educated billiant philosopher. I don't know who that is.
  
  What is next, I am his reincarnation?
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No. You don't have to read his books or any other's to become influenced by their ideas. You read books to find out who's been at work all this time in your head while you were unaware of it.
  
  You absorb their concepts through lnnguage. Feurbach was influential on social scientists, scientists, materialists, and revolutionaries iin the 19th c. His ideas went into the critiques of religion and ideas that came out of that era, including the one you think you invented.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Now the psycology educated philosopher will educate me on belief. What book did you read this in? I have never heard of him or read his ideas. Is he on hubpages? Who else has typed these ideas on hubpages?
  
  Funny that the psycology educated professor had to be schooled on individualism. Did the writer point out every idea I have mentioned?
  
  Type his quotes to show the similarity.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I doubt you read German and my German is almost gone from disuse. As Feurbach was alive in the 19th c, I sincerely doubt we'll find him posting here.
  
  I've never seen him mentioned here, either, but who knows?
  
  You have a computer. Look him up on that infernal Wikipedia thing,
  
  I also have a degree in fine art and almost had another in English lit, so don't leave that out.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In case you think you're being cute, I worked as a counselor under advisement and an SSTII for public mental health for 15 years. Yes, I am trained in psychology, from books and experience,personal insight, and trial and error.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yet you needed me to define individual thought and belief? Gotta love public education. Wanna add your GPA?
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I barely passed highschool and you claim I read my ideas from a german conspiracist.
  
  I must be a reincarnation right? I figure you would have some quotes I stole offhand since you made the assumption I copied his ideas. Yes, those degrees goes a long way teaching individual thought.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  He wasn't a "conspiricist". He was a philosopher.
  
  You rely on all sorts of ideas some philosopher or thinker came up with whom you've never read. You believe in matter? Democritus. You believe in soul? Plato. You believe in the absolute worth of the individual? Immanuel Kant.
  
  Oddly, I didn't like school much myself, until I got in college and just started reading and had access to things I'd never heard of before. I teach and have taught myself most of what I know, just like you -- my classes just gave me a leg up on a few subjects and some guidance and shortcuts. That's all.
  
  Just because you "barely graduated high school" doesn't mean much to me. You are not stupid; you can read; you do think. Go read about some of this stuff! It will not ruin your individuality, it will enhance it.
  
  I apologize for even trading barbs back and forth with you. I think I see something in you I missed entirely in my own defensiveness. Go read. All that knowledge belongs to you, and you don't need a degree to learn it.
  
  Peace. Be on your way.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If we always rely on information we have already seen, how is it ever proven what we haven't seen? I don't believe any of those you mentioned. My belief is not in absolutes. I have severe ADD with a selective attention span. If my minds not interested in something it tunes out, opposite with interesting topics where I am locked in. I will take your advice and do more reading, just on an individual basis rather than a class setting. Thank You for the compliment. I'm glad we could meet on a peaceful level. Thanks.
  report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My son has severe ADHD -- I understand. You don't have to do things other people's way. Not at all. Again, I apologize for being so damned argumentative.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not to be a smarta@@, but I much prefer people to argue and debate me than to agree with me. Which ones do we learn more from, those that agree or those that disagree? I have enjoyed our conversation. Thank You
  
  Just remember with your son that the areas he lacks in, he will be far advanced in others when he finds his interest. You probably already know this.
  report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Way to go guys. What a climax. Now we have a meeting of the minds.I`m almost sorry it`s over. Good luck to both.
  report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Boot camp is an exercise to train you to be able to function under stress and combat fatigue so as not to freeze up and die at a critical moment. there is no brain washing, its no different then sports practice or corporate training, where you repeat exercises over and over so that they become second nature and easily accomplished under stressful conditions.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever operated in a combat zone and observed how the chain of command works? There are leaders and generals who command from far away and expect those beneath them to be able to think and operate on their own and make decisions based on the facts of the situation. A mindless Zombie, that the public likes to portray soldiers as would quickly die in combat as his inability to think outside of the orders given would prevent mobility and adaptation to changing conditions.I have conducted hundreds of operations and patrols under which my only supervision was my conscience and training, based on morality and reasoning
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I understand what you say, but nevertheless ,if you were commandig men ,they at some point have to obbey your orders. nobody is portraying soldiers as zombies here !
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone at some point has to obey the directions and orders of someone above them or else this world would turn to chaos quickly. To say that there is no individuality in any form of belief is ignorant. Atheists believe there is no God, whether it is based on science, observation, or fact it is still a belief shared by millions worldwide. I am waiting to find this so called mythical figure that believes in nothing and is totally independent and free from all the worlds beliefs and stances.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In war there's no individuality. Army has to act as a whole. No time to think in oneself.
  About atheism, believing in nothing is unbelieving,wether you like it or not. I'm an atheist that believes in himself and nothing more.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Then you still believe in something
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't ask them hard questions. They have no script to read from when you ask an individual question.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't compare yourself to Tantrum at least he is actually stating a point you just go around disagreeing with every one, you're not even making an argument just spouting random generalizations about believers, governments and animals. You never have answered anything I asked you, have you been to combat, have you had to choose between life and death? Is there any real purpose behind this other then the world isn't fair and you want an apology?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes me and tantrum share the same belief brilliant one. Want to make anymore holes for yourself?
  
  Do I have to be in combat to know that a true marine sacrifices individualism for a group belief? Brilliant questions you have.
  
  The point is to make you aware that you have the grouped belief of an animal. Not to get an apology.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  yes it's true. Me and marine have more or less the same beliefs. But different ways of debating. Anyway y think he has a point about individualsm and Army. But as i'm not a soldier,I will not argue on this topic.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You tantrum, I always appreciate your "individual" thoughts unlike scripted thoughts we are so used to.
  
  I do differ from your belief though. I don't rule out the possibility of creation. The bibles story is quite ridiculous who's only intent is to group belief.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I never rulled out the possibility of creation. What i rulled out was the possibility of a God creating this world.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That I can agree on, the religious God is simply a government creation.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Which Government? I need to know who to send my angry letters to...Which God, and what is your definition of God?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If a marine is told to shoot a little kid with a bomb strapped to them, yet this goes against this marines individual belief, do they follow the order or let the squad die for their individual belief?
  
  Answer this one brilliant one.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever been asked to make this decision? Yes I have, and in this situation its about personal survival don't play the wounded hurting victim struggling with his conscience you always have a choice don't hide behind others.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So if it went against your belief, you would sacrifice individual belief to save the squad?
  
  This your answer. You still an individual in the marines? Marines are trained to work as 1, a team, not trained to work as individuals.
  
  I'm sure your brilliant experienced believer mind already knew this though.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You can keep antagonizing and belittling everyone that disagrees with you and running this same view through every thread you visit like you have been doing all week, in the end you will still be pissed off and waiting for an apology from the world and the Marines that you are never going to get. You are responsible for what has happened in your life, you chose to enlist you did it to yourself. This blame game for believers the government and the world at large is getting old and tiring.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  More assumptions of your brilliant mind. I love the marines and government. The helped me define group belief and individualism.
  
  Again, Group belief is government. Does your brilliant trained mind not understand this?
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
More questions for the brilliant believers.

What is the difference in the animal mind and a believer mind? They both follow scripts.
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The animal mind doesn't know of it's own existence and live guided by nature and a believer mind uses self-guidance to live, which requires no external guidance.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree. The believer lives to be dependent on an absolute belief to be content with life. Absolute belief requires faith and dependency on an external guidance, the bible or another to follow. They sacrifice self guidance by becoming a grouped belief or a follower of another.
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
@richard
You wrote
'By the way, a rhetorical question is one which the questioner often answers himself, out loud. It guides the conversation.'

funny definition of rhetorical question!

A rhetorical question is a question used for persuasive effect in a speech, without asking for a reply.It doesn't guide the conversation. It's only an additive.And the questioner doesn't answer the question himself, because the answer itself is obvious.
But maybe in your speeches you use a rhetorical question as stated in your post

Your posts are full of inaccurate definitions.
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Another question to brilliant believers.

We were all born different, but you strive for the same belief. Why not strive to get the same dna. Might as well have the same dna if you want to have the same belief.
reply report
1. 0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  FYI, this attitude that you keep preaching on here is a belief system shared by 850 million believers world wide, get a clue brother you're exactly what you claim to stand against just a different label and view.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you can't define my label and view, you are making an assumption.
  
  What do assumptions make you?
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
@richard
just in case i didn't make myself clear
I googled it

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (ex: "Why me, Lord?") Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
reply report
1. 61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Here, I'll quote the whole line from Wikipedia and explain myself. You've told me English isn't your native tongue, so you may not gather my technique was nothing unusual in English (regardless of what your argumentative buddy may have told you):
  
  "A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (ex: "Why me?")[1] Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to think about what the (Often obvious) answer to the question must be. When a speaker states, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?", no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
  
  All I did in answering my own rhetorical questions with "Yes" in my initial post was to drive home or reinforce the position I was taking -- to make the intention of assertion in the rhetorical question clear.
  
  Our friend's instantaneous snap rejoinder of "NO" to my question was not because he thought I was seriously asking a question, it was because he wished to insult me.
  
  Grammar and grammatical analysis is the last refuge of a scoundrel in a discussion such as this.
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
@scott
And in the army all men have the same moral codes and ethics, which make them a whole.
reply report
1. 0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sadly my friend I wish all men in the military did have morals and ethics but I will be the first to tell you that it isn't so. The problem with a volunteer service is that in general it IS a group of individuals, not a whole, that is the purpose behind the command structure, to overcome this discord among the individuals.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry. I was talking about army people, career soldiers,whatever you call them, english is not my language. I suppose that volunteers are individuals as you say.
  reply report
68
Artin2010posted 15 years ago
To rationally believe in a Supreme,Omnipresent unseen God is perfectly ok, because it is not only the wise thing to do, but it is the right thing to do, based on the amount of outside stimuli that we face during the maturing cycle of life.
What does one have to loose by believing in God?
On the other hand, not believing may very well also have consequence and is likely a foolish idea.
Can a rational person believe in God?
Definately a yes, given the input that is available.
God is the great mystery that allows one to ponder self, faith and most all perplexities of exsistance in the human experience.
Yes, Yes,Yes it can be done, just look deep into your heart, when you are in the delivery room with a women having childbirth and you will feel God's prescense within you!
Creation of life is the best example of divine work!
Have you been there?
reply report
1. 60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're totally irrational !
  reply report
2. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  God is to control your mind and body from acting like an animal, yet it does the opposite! A 1 belief God! Natures script!
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Another question believers:

Why are believers the only ones that need to study their belief?
reply report
0
Scott.Lifeposted 15 years ago
@Marine until you give us all some credentials then you have no business commenting on what a true Marine is and yes until you go to combat and actually put your money where your mouth is you have no room to argue with me about it, and ask me about decisions I have made in real life....I am an animal that's for sure...Don't talk to me about sacrifice when you have no clue on the subject.
reply report
61
Richard VanIngramposted 15 years ago
UPDATE from my point of view -- worth nothing, but funny:

A funny thing happened to me in the forums.

Well several.

I’ve got a “biologist” without a name who claims to have done 8 years of studies, who wants to set “religionists” right on the subject of evolution (according to his/her/its profile) – who won’t offer proof one s/he/it is a biologist and won’t make any arguments at all. S/he/it takes no personal responsibility for anything that s/he/it says or claims and makes no effort to prove any statements while gunning down anyone else who makes a statement not backed up with 15 paragraphs of explanation (which are dismissed out of hand as inherently flawed).

I’ve got a Marine who won’t provide evidence he’s a Marine – he get’s mad if you assume he is, and mad if you assume he isn’t; he insults the Corps but, at the same time, hides behind it and acts as if anyone talking about him is talking about the Corps instead. He takes full personal responsibility, even for ideas that are obviously not his own. And he can’t respond to a question with a simple answer . . . and I think he sort of sounds like Yoda.

I’ve got a person who yelled at me for saying anything to him because English isn’t his native tongue – and then he tries to tear into me based on an analysis of my English usage and definitions based on the wisdom of Wikipedia. . . which did not say what he thought it said, any way.

Geeze. That’s the highlights. And none of it has a thing to do with what I wanted to discuss.

I guess these things take on a life of their own after you send them out there.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol that was pretty entertaining to read, I must say. What ideas have I stated that aren't individual? When did I insult the marines.
  
  The believer, all lies to protect the faith!
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
@richard
you say
I’ve got a person who yelled at me for saying anything to him because English isn’t his native tongue – and then he tries to tear into me based on an analysis of my English usage and definitions based on the wisdom of Wikipedia. . . which did not say what he thought it said, any way.

When i yelled to you ? I don't remember using caps.And the definition couldn't be more accurate.
You're allways twisting my words to your advantage.
the point is, that you don't have a point
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  He has to protect the faith! It's all in interpretation!
  reply report
2. 61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Again, as you've said, English is not your language.
  
  We exaggerate and speak in colorful expressions that are not always to be taken literally. They paint a picture, create an atmosphere. Kind of like when you read the Bible, except I'm a heck of alot LESS complicated and a lot more biting and acidic.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Acidic? where? Biting ? Looks like you're losing it
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  On those posts where you immediately followed up by hurtling insults and hurt expressions and saying "bye" and "I'm done here," etc.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Show me the insults. I've never insulted you ! and if 'bye' is an insult or 'I'm done here' !....
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're making the same false statements as when you said I shouted at you, which i never did !!
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ***********************************************************
  
  OK. What was ++this++ mess? In my culture, these are called "insults":
  
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  'OK. What was ++this++ mess? In my culture, these are called "insults"
  Where does the above fit in ?
  
  If you've been offensive in the first place, I'm entitled to defend myself.
  Insults? the only one I see is 'shows no intelligence on your part'
  I have tried to be mild, and I think I succeed despite your arrogant attacks.
  And despite you saying that I have shouted at you which I didn't! And this is the third time I pointed this to you without receiving any response.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've been away from the computer, thinking.
  
  I agree I have been arrogant at times, and touchy. I agree you had the right to say what you did. Forgive me for my arrogance.
  
  This is a serious request.
  
  We both have our positions on this and each isn't going to convince the other here. If anything, I caused you to not listen to what little I had to say that I wanted heard.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Cool! we both have our positions and I respect that. I'm sure you have a lot to say. Maybe you didn't find the way to say it yet. I'm for short statements. synthesis is my word
  thanks for your reply !!
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You for being ADD sensitive!
  reply report
0
ralwusposted 15 years ago
I think we are proving there are no rational people around on another thread. So this is all pointless.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good Day to you ralwus!
  reply report
0
ralwusposted 15 years ago
Hello marine. how ya doing my man? good to see ya.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Great! Good to see you as well young man.
  reply report
0
Scott.Lifeposted 15 years ago
For the record I don't believe in creationism and it may shock you to know that the majority of the worlds faiths do not either and have accepted evolution as a viable explanation of the continuation and growth of life. Creationism is as much a political movement as a religious one in the US, and has often been at odds with the world's faiths and stance on science but it is convenient to group all believers and religions into this box as it makes it easier to disregard them as a whole.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How do the worlds faiths not believe in creationism when the bible claims man and woman was made from a rib and dust? The worlds faiths teach from the bible. Do they just skip around that part?
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because most of the worlds faith understand that the Bible is not a history book or a work of literature, but a collection of cultural traditions and beliefs that have been passed down through history. Christians do not hold the Old Testament as concrete fact and neither surprisingly do Jews today. It is a moral lesson. the small minority that hold it as literal truth are labeled creationists. This debate has been going on since the 1850's
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  With all due respect, every religionist I have met or that has been in my family is/was absolute in belief and tried to convert me to their one belief system. As seen on the thread, many will deny to read and debate individual thoughts because it challenges their faith.
  reply report
  0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In the literal since you are made from dust.All life on earth is carbon based. Taken literally the Bible is filled with contradictions, but taken as moral teachings and parables as it was taught at the time then it is easier to move forward, and begin to view the world and Universe in a larger sense. it was pointed out last night that the book of Job is actually older then Genesis, and so existed before the creation story, also the first five books of the Bible are written by Moses and so reflect the tradition and history of the world as he knew it and had been taught, by his ancestors.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I will agree that the bible has "some" good morals when looking past the contradictions and favoritism. I agree it is a good history lesson. I disagree with it because it contradicts individualism and because it makes some follow their entire lives never recognizing an individual belief because of blind faith and false threats to group their belief into 1. I believe it is made up stories that can only answer true questions through faith or interpretation. I also believe this is done to take the readers mind off of the true purpose which is control through belief and nothing divine. Is that insane?
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is not contradictions in the Bible. There are only contradictions in our minds. There is the reason for it.
  I have a question. How do you explain Moses would wright story and new that Adam had all elements in his body as earth has?
  In His time elements were not known, only some.
  reply report
71
Quilligrapherposted 15 years ago
@Richard
You got off to a good start and I truly admired your skill at moderating a deep discussion of a topic that I know you deem very important. But is no surprise to me that, with time, the participants grew weary of attacking the message and resorted to attacking the messenger.

“Grammar and grammatical analysis is the last refuge of a scoundrel in a discussion such as this.” (Richard VanIngram)

“If you deny this, you are a liar and you are going to hell.” (marinealways24)

“Is mean old Mr. Philosopher scary to the Marine-who-doesn't-like-the-Marines-but-is-a-Marine-maybe-but-he-ain't-tellin'-and-can't-give-straight-answers-because-that's-too-common?” (Richard VanIngram)

As a wise old sage once wrote: "Do not tell me what I should think. Rather, tell me what you think and I will decide for myself what I should think."

After following this thread longer than I should have, I still agree with the following quote. “In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

I wish you more success next time.

Q
reply report
1. 61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you. Point taken, noted, agreed with.
  
  I'm afraid I wavered around quite a bit between trying to have a sensible discussion and letting the Irish side of my genetic pool get hold of me. That Irish side does better writing poetry.
  
  I've not done discussions, outside of class discussion for my students, online in about 10 years. I recall not liking them then, but I see the possibility of value in them when someone moderates the thread . . . someone better at it than I am, I suppose.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Moderation limits. Thoughts aren't free when they are guided, moderated, and limited. Welcome to my classroom! I enjoy your thoughts.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sir, this is an honest question, not in efforts to prove you wrong.
  
  Should emotions be tied in with a belief system? Should there be a system for a belief?
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It think it's humanly impossible to have a belief system without emotional involvement -- but that doesn't have to mean the beliefs are chosen because of emotions.
  
  Some beliefs are not systematic -- as a philosopher, I am probably quite unsystematic; it is difficult to locate me in a "group," though I can point to those who have influenced me and who are similar to me; but I accept none of them and their teachings completely. On some points, I have my own ideas and my own solutions to problems.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Wait a minute, no one told me if I was insane or not.
reply report
1. 0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  About as much as the rest of us.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Damn, now I don't feel like an individual anymore.
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh no, not again?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, I am mellowed out now. I have belief! lol
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I`ve been running along the sideline for 2 days watching the game , and loving it.But what is important is to realize is that we`re all just people. Nobody has all the answers and everyone is searching.I`m a believer in Christ, not necessarily any denomination,but I realize others don`t necessarily share my views.But I have within me the grace to accept others as they come.I`ve started speaking with Ernest of Ernestshub and find him to be vocal and snotty sometimes but I really have a respect for the man.Have developed a liking for him and told him so.And on the same note, I was critisized by another believer for reaching out in friendship.But I know in the end we`re all going to find out the truth.Like I say,we`re just people. Now that the fire has died down,I`m hitting the sack.Looking forward to seeing you on hubs again.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You for adding your thoughts. Very honerable. Great to see a believer admit to not knowing all of the answers as none of us know the answers. Truth about us only knowing anything in the end. True common ground. Thank You for adding that.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed. I actually like Earnest, too. I read his posts and we have had an extended exchange elsewhere that was productive. We are just people. I'm a philosopher person, which automatically makes me, not better, but more aggravating than most. Marry that with an occaisional solar storm of temper and I'm fairly intolerable.
  
  But it doesn't give me all the answers. One of the things I finally discovered as a philosopher is that reason does have limits -- not in the sense that science does not "work," or that it is weak and useless or valueless, but just that beyond certain landmarks, reason cannot pass.
  
  For me, there was more disappointment in that discovery than joy, initially. I am,in some ways,very much a grandson of the 18th c. Enlightenment. Nevertheless,the optimism about the powers of reason that time harbored appear too extreme to me now.
  
  I learned there is a third category between reason and unreason or irrationality: a-rationality. Some things cannot be known by reason, or reason has not yet shone much light on them -- yet they do not violate what we do know by reason.
  
  That God exists in some way, I think reason can make believable, credible arguments to support. That this or that religious belief about God is true -- I don't think, for the most part, reason does much to prove, other than help us discover which religious beliefs wholly violate what we know or suspect by the unaided mind. That, and reason, especially philosophy, is indispensible for examining theological questions inside of religion -- and so is science.
  
  Reason needs humility. Reason plus humility leave room for the possibility of faith. Reason and faith acting in concert open up a broader world for speculation and life than reason alone or faith alone.
  
  But, in the end, I see why people of reason reject faith and why people of faith reject reason, seeing them as incompatible. I disagree with them,and wish to show third path -- I'm still too emotional about that third path, though, sometimes to present it well.
  
  I'm hardly a preacher or a "prophet." I barely do well as a philosopher and a man.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  At last - No offense, but you have finally said something worth a response. Something from the heart that is not merely attempting to coerce other people into agreeing with you. So, I will respond as honestly as you have spoken.
  
  This only applies to you. For you - reason has limits because there are things that you "know" or "believe" that cannot be explained by reason. But - the belief comes first. Therefore you are forced to go "beyond" reason and into the "un-reasonable," for your "explanation."
  
  Science has no limits. None. But - sometimes it reaches a point where it says, "we do not have an answer for that just yet."
  
  This is not acceptable to you. You have to have an explanation for the answer you already have. So - you are forced to move into the metaphysical world and "create one."
  
  This is only acceptable to you and others who need to have all the answers. It is not acceptable to a rational individual - because it was not reached in a rational way.
  
  Once again - you are blaming the powers of reason rather than accepting that to explain the answers you already "know" - reason can not help.
  
  There is not a third category. You have made this up to fulfill your irrational need to justify a wholly irrational belief.
  
  You are not reasoning - you are justifying, using semantics and a variety of other word games in an attempt to justify your faith based belief.
  
  Unfortunately - you are not and have not used reason to justify your pre-existing assumption that "god exists in some way."
  
  Part of what you say is true though - religious beliefs wholly violate what we know and can reasonably deduce. Yet - your need to believe that "god exists in some way," is so powerful - you will ignore that.
  
  This is arrogant, assumptive and insulting to those who prefer to use reason. You are saying that you are humble because you think there is a god, and that any reasonable person is arrogant for denying this god that "exists in some way."
  
  I do not reject faith in any way. I can see it exists. What I do reject - is your attempts to preach the gospel of "It is really perfectly reasonable and rational, and actually better than using reason."
  
  Because that is not rational, and it is also insulting. I know you cannot see that - because you have the answer.
  
  And you are preaching.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There are limits to science.
  
  1. No physicist will admit to having absolute knowledge -- knowledge is relative and probabilistic in science. A scientist cannot know where a particle is and how fast it is going at the same time, though the particle has both speed and location. Light is a wave in nothing -- when looked at one way it is a wave and when looked at in another it is a particle -- when reason says it can't be both. Light outstrips reason.
  
  Reality contains reason -- reason is not coextensive with reality: Hegel's old dictum "The Rational is the real" was abandoned by science with Einstein.
  
  2. Science did not invent science. Science has no power to invent its own assumptions and principles or critique them. That is not within th epower of scientific methodologies. Philosophy does that task, and asking philosophical questions, questions about Epistemology and Ontology or, if you prefer, "metaphysics" leads to the creation of sciences and new branches of science.
  
  For this reason, there can be a history of science and a philosophy of science, but there is no such thing as a "science of science," a scienceology. Science cannot reflect on itself using scientific reason alone. This issue was settled about a hundred years ago.
  
  3. Even if I am wrong, science is not capable, in principe, of the wish-fulfillment you invest it with. What you are proposing is a very 19th c.ideology called "scientism" that pretty much was discredited by the 1940s. It is still believed by laymen and less informed scientists who confuse techological conquests and advances for advances in actual understanding and theoretical acumen.
  
  The ability to manipulate the world is not commensurate with the ability to explain it truthfully. The Romans were a technologically advanced race and had nothing like our science -- yet their "understanding" of the world, which they thought completely true, was more than enough to support their technological successes.
  
  Read Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." It is a classic in philosophy of science and history of science (I don't see how grad school did not bring it into your classroom experience).
  
  He isn't a believer at all and you may gain some insight into how science actually functions in history -- its abilities and its limitations. Like all mortal pursuits, it has both.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for giving my statements the consideration you felt they were worth. I am so glad I took the trouble. In future I think, "you are wrong" repeated over and over might be a more practical use of my time. The truth is scary, I will give you that.
  
  OK - your "belief" in god is perfectly reasonable and rational.
  
  Well done Preacher Man. I will leave you to your delusions, oh - I mean you very own personal "rational thought process" which is "reason with humility."
  
  I do recommend a new dictionary though. Yours seems to be unable to define the term, "science." And I am not really interested in gaining the type of "insights" you have gained. Once again - your dictionary seems to be broken and yours seems to say, "delusion," means "insights."
  
  Oh well. All you have done is confirmed my suspicion that it is not possible to have a rational conversation with a religionist.
  
  I will leave you to "not preaching" then.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your words have a Mark Knowles ring to them.
  reply report
0
Star Witnessposted 15 years ago
Cool. I wondered why I was here.
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Ignorance
reply report
1. 0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Marine,I`m liking you more by the minute.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Likewise. That doesn't sound to followerish does it? Don't want to contradict my individuality.
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Marine,you`re killing me.I haven`t laughed this much all day. Between the Ignorance remark and Contradicting your individuality,I`m laughing my head off. I`m serious.I`ll see you somewhere here tomorrow,SAME BAT TIME,SAME BAT CHANNEL.From the 60`s Batman.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  GN sir, I will probably be here defending my individuality again. See you. I enjoyed the conversation.
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
You can find your purpose in the Book of Urantia, then. I pass. that Book is an american nonsense printed about 1925,about a ridiculous theory of creation. Maybe in those days it was quite a book. But nowadays!....
reply report
61
howdoyoumakemoneyposted 15 years ago
I think all humans are pretty stupid actually
reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
posting this in all the threads is not going to make people read your hubs. On the contrary, they won't !
reply report
67
Theo Sellesposted 15 years ago
Richard!

I loved your Hub and I appreciate deeply the discussion/debate that followed, though Evolution Guy does come across as a bit bitchy at times in the presentation of his valuable perspective.

I'd like to take a bit of a different angle and examine the definition of, not God, but "Irrationality". Is it irrational to believe in anything that one cannot prove? If I choose to believe in the existence of something (God, Fairies, Aliens, Altruism, a bad chocolate chip cookie) without being able to prove that these things exist, does that mean that I am irrational or that my thinking is irrational?

In this case, I think we need to define irrationality (being someone with a clinical mental health background, I think I may have a bit of an inside track on this). I just goggled "irrational" and came up with this:

a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment:

I would conclude that deciding to believe without being able to prove the existence of that thing does not mean that one is not endowed with reason, or must lack mental clarity, is incoherent, suffering from shock, or does not possess an accord with reason or sound judgment. In fact, from a clinical perspective, it is a sign of a healthy mind to be aware of having beliefs that not "provable" and the ability to take on contradictory positions while being aware of doing so is a reflection of intellectual acuity.

I can rationally choose to believe something just because I want to and I know that it makes me feel better to do so. Perhaps it is when I stray into thinking that a nonprovable belief is indeed provable that I become irrational. If I go further and I decide to impose my nonprovable beliefs onto others I likely stray even farther down the crazy path.

Belief is, after all, not dependent on proof. In fact, if I could prove the existence of God, I'm not sure it would make sense to say that I believe in him/her any more than it would make sense to say that I believe in cars. Belief, and faith, can certainly be seen as rational choices to help deal with a challenging, confusing, often pain-filled world, just as deciding not to believe or to have faith can be a rational choice. But perhaps that's a whole other topic.

Thanks for this, though.

Theo
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very well thought out. I am in almost full agreement. If I said full agreement that would be an absolute statement which is irrational.
  
  To sum up the book you just wrote, all you had to say was:
  
  Irrational = Believing in Absolutes
  
  ^^^^^^
  
  Not an absolute statement.
  reply report
0
Rick Marlowposted 15 years ago
Sorry Evolution Guy, I got my question in your reply. My apologies.
reply report
61
Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years ago
New Age?
reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
! nothing better to do on a Saturday ?
reply report
1. 0
  Marc Salyerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That makes 3 of us.
  reply report
67
gary777gposted 15 years ago
I came to the forums recently and found this first question I saw very interesting (Can a rational person believe in the existance of God?). I have been reading the hundreds of posts and gone outside of this forum to follow links and also found some reading on my own. Of course I have my own pre-conceived answer(s) to these and many other topics.

You can type whatever you want into a search engine and find any number of supporting articles for either side of any argument.

For example:

"debunking evolution" http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"evidence for God" http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic … 5FznxTTSEc

It comes down to what you WANT to believe.

Evolution does not and did not happen. But will you go to the link? No. Will you read ANYTHING that is printed with the view that evolution is wrong? No. So why do we have this little chat?

I could type in: "There is no god" and read all about that if I wanted to.

Or I could type in "Why creation is impossible" and read that -

But I have already read why evolution is impossible and I am convinced, so why read any more?

I am most offended by "Evolution Guy".

The fool has said in his heart "There is no God" Psalm 14:1

This verse is for you, "Evolution Guy"
reply report
1. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - I can see how some one not believing the things you believe would be offensive. I can see you would need to make up some pretend "science" to salve your ego as well.
  
  Too bad we did away with burning witches at the stake huh?
  Now you have to listen to real facts that contradict your ridiculous beliefs instead. Oh well......
  
  And yes - I am well aware that your book calls anyone who does not believe a fool.
  
  Odd that it shocks you when that causes conflict. Still - as long as jesus ios being fought for I suppose that is the main thing.
  
  Guess it is OK to call people fools if you are speaking for god.
  
  As for your links to "science" - I know your bible encourages people to lie in order "defend the faith," but that is a little over the top.
  
  Still - as long as it is for jesus hey? That is what counts.
  
  Well done being impartial by the way. Millions of fossils lying around the place and you manage to persuade yourself they were put there by the devil. Last week.
  
  Golly gosh - there really is no way of having a rational conversation with a religionist is there? I think I will stick to calling you an irrational fool - like you keep asking me to.
  reply report
60
Andrew0208posted 15 years ago
"Can a rational individual believe in God?" Both rational and irrational individuals believe in God. Believing is a choice.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Believing is nature of the animal to be part of a group.
  reply report
2. 61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. For myself and many others, I think the choice need not be irrational, as in "opposed to reason." The religious beliefs that follow may or may not have rational elements,but the choice to believe does not have to be devoid of rational grounds.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Where are all of the faith based responses? I am challenging your faith. It requires an emotional response to protect your belief. Belief needs to be protected, right?
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Do I need to keep going?
reply report
59
Evolution Guyposted 15 years ago
Keep going keep going.

It looks like the believers have bowed out anyway. We have moved into an area in which they are uncomfortable - facts. I must admit to being impressed with some of the desperation I see here though.

But be careful. They get offended if you do not believe that Jeebus is the savior or suggest that there may be more than one way of defining god. And as VU will explain - not that there is any climate change or anything - people lived a LOT longer when there was more oxygen in the air and we were immune to snake bites.

Hard to argue with proof like that.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Also hard to argue that faith contradicts science to anyone that has watched the news and seen a child die for faith treatment over medicine.
  
  If all relied on faith, we would have no medicine from a grouped belief that a divine being would step in and intervene.
  
  Fortunate there were individual minds that invented science and medicine.
  
  Why does the knowledge of medicine continue to grow? I would hate to term this an evolution of medicine.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes,we can live longer now, but we're going to die anyway.
  Science is good, but in a way it's a 'placebo'.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, we are self destructive. Another reason the bible was created by government.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
A couple more ignorant thoughts from the ignorant Marine to the brilliant believers of absolute faith.

I can understand the psycology of the believer/follower mind, but I can't understand the thoughts of the contradictory prophets?

Why is this? Because of the "evolution"/"learning" of the human mind and psycology. You think psycology of biblical days competes with psycology of now?

Now what "atomswifey" is thinking: "He is the devil." "I won't challenge his thoughts in my trained follower belief because my faith teaches me to deny logic for faith".

Why do I know this? It's what your faith and belief taught you to do when logic contradicts your faith. You have no individual belief, but a trained grouped belief. Your "absolute" belief.

Note: My belief of these comments are not absolute!

Keep going?

I made an edit from "individual" to "trained follower".
reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
It seems you want to keep going !
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now I will await the faith challenged responses that tells me how arrogant and ignorant I am for challenging faith and a 1 grouped belief that contradicts having an individual mind. I might even get schooled on why I am ignorant for not using proper punctuation.
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
@ marine
I'm fed up with your goverment and your 1 belief system !!! you're not going to make them understand ! and 2day is Sunday! For christ sake !
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have "faith" that they will one day develop self awareness and understand they are a contradiction to their indivdual mind. All is possible with "faith" right?
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I'm still waiting for Mohammad to make the mountain come to him !
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That wasn't tobacco in his "divine" pipe.
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing is impossible to...
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Right. Still what is bothering me is that for so long man mentally did not developed while had the chance, inspite I admire knowledge.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The mind continually evolves/grows/learns throughout life until we find absolutes to believe in. Absolute belief contradicts having a free/open mind. When a belief is absolute, the mind is content with belief.
  
  I would guess that the psycology of an individual and follower was not largely understood in biblical times as it is obviously still not fully understood. This is why biblical believers still exist. The mind has not individualized. In biblical times, I would guess there were only a few gifted individuals who understood grouped thought and the ability to control belief through emotions. If we came from one, imagine how hard it would be to individualize from all of the others when individualization was not accepted. Individualization is still not accepted as seen from the bible believers initial beating of my individual thoughts when my individual thoughts challenged their group belief and faith.
  
  My truth is, jesus was a conspiracy to group belief through emotions for control. Remember, jesus asked for followers, not individuals. He taught them to be followers, he didn't teach them to be individuals. He also taught them that they were favored for their belief. Favoritism is not divine.
  
  These beliefs are not absolute of course.
  reply report
61
creativesoulposted 15 years ago
I ask you this its a journey that one takes in life to find out what he or she believes in. This doesnt mean we can judge everyone who questions things its because you are searching for answers. Its not wrong to search or put your view its what you want answerings thats my question?

If you believe in God he will lift that stone across your heart to show you the truth if your willing too understand it?

Its only then by personal experience that we express are desire to look within or find out what other people think. If you love within your soul then the answers is yes you may return but if love isnt within your heart then it will take you awhile to find your way to the light again.

Believing from your heart and ask God you'll be given your answer.. Just knock and he will answer. You might reject what i am saying or you will say you didnt get my point at all!

Sometimes you must travel this path to find the truth!

I believe that anyone who wants to find God will do through the heart and soul, a little help along the way. I value your views and other peoples and i never judge what people put. Their is nothing wrongy in believing in God
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is when it is based on a 1 system belief that requires followers. There is nothing wrong with believing in an individual idea of a creator, I agree. I simply disagree that the creator shouldn't be defined through emotion and fear to create a 1 group belief for control based on false absolutes and faith.
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 15 years ago
who's this Jeebus? A driver I suppose
What's the bus number ? Maybe i'll take the trip! thank you !
reply report
1. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Jeebus serves the canapés at Dr. Karl Baugh's clinic where they measure the amount of oxygen in the air during Noah's flood every week to see if it was the same as now.
  
  They also prove conclusively that fossils are a lie crated by the devil for evil purposes and if you send money you will get a free fossil signed by Satan.
  
  It is all written down somewhere.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are the canapes good ?
  Yeah I got a lot of those fossils, but they were given for free in some church. Can't recall know where was it
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I enjoy how you purposely mock a man who isn't a native English-speaker and his use of terms. I have been guilty of accidently assuming a person was a native speaker who wasn't and they found it offensive, rightly so.
  
  I'd like to see you defend your position in Russian as well as the gentleman did in English.
  
  For that matter, I'd just like to see you defend **A** position at some point instead of falling back into disrespectful stereotypical thinking about all believers.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I see - you think the fact that he thinks that the oxygen level was much higher and humans were immune to snake bites 5,000 years ago is a matter of poor English and I just misunderstood? Dear oh dear. Jeebus would be ashamed of you.
  
  Now you are resorting to outright lies.
  
  What a pity - you really are very, very good at semantics. You should stick to that.
  
  Reason with humility.
  
  Sorry - still laughing at that one.......
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, no. I think that your making fun of the man's use of the word "canape'" for "cannopy" is mocking:
  
  reply report
61
Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years ago
Here is my conclusion (I hope).
There are many fossils but no links was found because they do not exists.
Both sides believers and atheists are depending on their own beliefs.
Atheism is political to gain control over people. Atheists killed more people than any other religious system in our ages.
Biblical belief for me is right, religion is not.
Atheism is religion.
I do love Mark and atheists.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What is my belief or religion?
  reply report
  61
  atomswifeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Tied up in the dogma of self
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If that is the case, why do I welcome others debate?
  
  I noticed you didn't use a title, you only made a statement. Final answer?
  reply report
2. 59
  Jeramiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I could not agree with you more.
  belief in a creator is a good thing.
  belief in a religion is a bad thing.
  reply report
3. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So - you don't have proof that jeebus serves the canapés at the science institute where they measure the amount of oxygen that was in the air during the flood?
  
  Shame. Maybe I don't believe in jeebus any more without the proof you promised. What sort of love is that daddy?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you around? The believers have no answers for me.
  
  What is the evolution theory of why we are the only animals to evolve in mind?
  
  I'm sure you will not say, because of god.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am around, but I cannot answer your questions. The clear sheep-like behavior is another thing they prefer to deny.
  
  Almost to a man(woman) they all deny following a religion and then spout religion at you. Look at VU - he thinks "love" means trying to force you to ignore the facts that are all around us.
  
  AW thinks laughing out loud at another person's idea of god is acceptable behavior and is confused as to why this generates ill-will.
  
  The OP, after berating me for not answering his question properly, immediately ignored my response when I did answer him at length.
  
  One of the other believers was all over the discussion until I pointed out that evolution has no room for a "guiding hand" in the process.
  
  What can I say to someone who thinks a lack of belief in a god is an evil religion to gain control over people while totally ignoring the last 1800 years of control that we have documented in thousands of history books?
  
  It is not possible to have a rational conversation with these people.
  
  But they have all the answers if you just suspend disbelief.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you answered me. Your answer was poor and required no thought, but it was an answer.
  
  If a student in any of my clases, when asked to argue against evolution, if that was their cup of tea, came back at me with, "Evolution can't be true because all arguments for the existence of evolution begin by defining evolution, thus assume evolution exists," I'd have drawn a big, red "F" on their paper.
  
  It's an answer, but it's intended to side-step the argument, not face it. You do a lot of side-stepping, a lot of dancing -- no real, valuable answering or defending your own position.
  
  Hence, I really haven't much to say to your response.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Yup - semantics. That is what you do. Side step what argument exactly?
  
  "God exists therefore I am right."? Sure.
  reply report
  61
  Richard VanIngramposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As Wikipedia seems to be the sole acceptable source of definitions here, let's wee what it has to sat about "semantics":
  
  "Semantics is the study of meaning, usually in language. The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period of time. The word is derived from the Greek word σημαντικός (semantikos), "significant",[1] from σημαίνω (semaino), "to signify, to indicate" and that from σήμα (sema), "sign, mark, token".[2] In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each has several branches of study. In written language, such things as paragraph structure and punctuation have semantic content; in other forms of language, there is other semantic content.[3]
  
  "The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including proxemics, lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties.[4] In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are related fields. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
  
  Hmm. Doesn't sound so dastardly, demeaning, or innacurate, as one of my fields of speialization in grad school was semiotics (esp. Umberto Eco).
  
  Find another word besides "liar" and semanticist to throw at me. See if you can find one that legitimately sticks. Back it up with an argument. I've been waiting for days while you hijacked the thread and turned it into a discussion of matters that have little to do with my claim and another opportunity to insult those different from yourself.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I do not have an answer to that question - as you already know.
  
  Pretty sure it was not the christian god. Whether is was some ambiguous undefinable purposeless one. Who knows?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Only more truth that there are no absolutes!
  
  Cheers to you.
  
  I agree that it's not the christian god and that may be absolute because it defines nothing in search of absolutes.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is it worth pointing out that stating, "there are no absolutes," is an absolute statement in itself?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I thought about adding "Note: this is not in absolute belief so you couldn't point that out." I was slacking.
  
  Would you consider the statement: "No one knows why the human mind evolved when others didn't." absolute?
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oooops I thought I am out of Forum for now.
  Hey my friend. Nobody measured oxygen during the flood. The same nobody can measure evolution. It is impossible to go back. But experiments were done is the tank with higher Oxygen pressure where plants and animals live. It is state when plasma of animals is also saturated. They are immune of diseases, live longer and poison do not affect them.
  The Bible said that in that canapé the windows occurred during the flood. Now age of man is shorter. The canape is about 50% thinner.
  One characteristic (from many) of canapé is electromagnetic property or crystal field. Do you remember crystal radio chamber? I heard radio in such device when I was a kid. Oldest book of Job informed us that they heard the stars sing.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLO
  
  So - you are quite happy to believe that we "evolved" into our present condition thanks to adaptation to changes in the environment that caused the oxygen levels to make us start living only 80 years instead of 800 years - based on zero facts.
  
  Yet you are also arguing that we did NOT evolve into our present form.
  
  And just to make sure - this is not your poor grasp of English.
  
  You think we evolved to only live 80 years or so and evolved to lose our immunity to snake bites etc.
  
  So - you do believe in evolution - you just have an entirely different sort of evolution going on based on the proven facts - well, not based on any facts actually
  
  Is that right?
  reply report
  61
  Lee Booleanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  I am only forty and have to watch out that I don't sit on my own balls... gravity must have been different too
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have the same problem.
  
  This is the most entertaining argument I have heard. This guy has now argued that we evolved from living a long time - which he can prove because the canape opened - and also evolved from being immune to snake bites etc into only living a short time and dying from snake bites etc..
  
  But evolution cannot happen as well. I am waiting to see how he sorts this one out.
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Man has always problems. ha.
  
  Disruption of canopy produced troubles. Now it is only half what use to be in prae-flood time.
  Sir, did I deserve your sarcasm?
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Did Jesus ask for followers or for individuals?
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Where is the biblical mind to answer this question?
  
  Note: this question is not a trick of the devil.
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus ask for followers.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You Sir.
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus ask for followers because he said,"I Am The Way".
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But Jesus was individual.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who contradicts the individual mind with his 1 belief system and favored belief. He was an individual that understood the psycology of the follower mind and nothing more. Make them believe and they will follow. Simply psycology, no where near our evolved psycology.
  
  Are you sure jesus wasn't the devil?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To a 1 belief system that contradicts having an idvidual mind and also thinks they are favored for their belief.
  
  He forgot to add that part.
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  God always call the individual. He never called collective.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, but what did "god" teach, them to rely on themselves to develop individual belief or a 1 belief system that contradicts free will and an individual mind?
  
  I can do this all day. god is my witness!
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Christ and all others after him taught 1 belief system.To believe on Him(Jesus).He said there is no other way but Me.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That is not what our resident prophet says. And the muslimist prophet is pretty adamant that jesus was not god.
  
  Unless you understand that you are jesus........
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I can`t fully speak for the resident prophet,But I`ve pretty muck kicked around 50 years + in church and many years of self study.We are called as individuals but to follow one cause and that is Jesus.I believe he was God in the flesh.I guess it`ll all come out in the wash when we get there.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Or you will have wasted the better part of your life on belief in a nonexistent deity.
  
  What really makes more sense.
  
  We all die and disappear back from wherever we came from, or we (the chosen few) live forever in paradise?
  
  What a shame you cannot see that it is here and now for the taking......
  
  Still waiting on Vladimir to explain how HIS version of evolution can happen, but not the one millions of scientists have proven facts for........
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Scientists do not have any facts, only theory. Adaptation and evolution are two different matters.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Scientists have logic, faith requires none.
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, Why you do not prove what you preach? You are intelligent person enough. Why you don't synthesize cell? But do not use God's material, make it your own (from nothing). Then I will believe and accept your theory.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  god is a government conspiracy to keep you from acting as an animal. Belief = Control. You are controlled. The sooner this sinks in, you will find your individual mind.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is fact that there is no logic in faith. I'm not a scientist.
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Scientists using a lot of faith.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Faith is absolute. Science is not.
  reply report
  60
  dentist83posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do not talk about thing you hardly understand. There are many scientific facts. Do you think your computer works based on faith? Scientist give you you PC, and there is no faith on it.
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry I cannot resist. Why did you put your mask of Darwin and not Newton? Darwin was drinking too much beer and was thrown out of medical school after first year. You know, son of rich dad! Newton was much better scientist.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You put all of your faith in titles and degrees?
  reply report
  59
  sooner than laterposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As is what I know. If life is just "here for the taking", gone tomorrow. hub forums is not living it up. My treasures are not of this earth.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What is the purpose of a 1 belief system, to control or to individualize? Jesus was a seperatist as well as any other that taught to be favored for belief. A contradiction to individualism. Also a contradiction to peace by introducting favoritism of belief. How many innocents have died to protect the government favored god belief system?
  reply report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How can you say that an enlightened person like Jesus can utter such egoistic words?
  
  If any one claims like that we do not bother for him or her nowadays.
  
  Can anyone tell like this in this thread? He will be called arrogant or self boasting.
  
  I do not think that a person like Jesus can utter such words. This may be put to her mouth and added by some other person.
  
  it will be better to research Bible (Original manuscripts)again for the same.
  
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes he always calls individually,One at a time.But isn`t His intent to encompass all of mankind.Is that not what He said?
  reply report
61
zadrobiposted 15 years ago
I must have joined at what looks like the end of the thread. The slow detachment of reality to an ethereal and unclassifiable realm of 'absolutes' has culminated I declare Evolution guy and Marine the winners!
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Maybe another question would be, what sparked individual thought? Another unknown. But, that's not absolute.
reply report
1. 0
  Rick Marlowposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Individualism? hehe
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Alright, what sparked individualism? lol It keeps going.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you mean "individualism" or "self-awareness" because there are plenty of "individuals" in the animal kingdom.
  
  And has it not occurred to you that there is not an answer to your question?
  
  Or as the religionists would say - "if you just open your mind,' you will see the non-answer that we accept is the best you are going to get"?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A little of both. I would think it takes self awareness to understand individualism. "We" individualized from others when we began walking on 2 legs. I understand these questions are not solved yet, that doesn't make it not fun to ask in search of absolutes. When I say self awareness or conscious thought, I am questioning the specific point or thing that caused the first conscious thought to develop morals and belief. I know the biblical mind has no aswers as long as they live for belief. These belief's are not absolute.
  reply report
  61
  Vladimir Uhriposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If one see the evolutionist picture there is monkey on the left and man on the right. I made one px like that and between them I put only almost vertical lines depend of angle to fit the trend. It represented an artistic lines which was filled by fantasy man. I would not call it science but art.
  Have a good day, my friend.
  reply report
0
Rick Marlowposted 15 years ago
Just running through the thread Marine. Gotta go. Trying to throw a laugh in there somewhere.Good to see you`re still at it.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 4 5 … 6 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies