Is Religion Rational or Impulsive?

Jump to Last Post 1-37 of 37 discussions (232 posts)

59
marinealways24posted 13 years ago
A person that has an open belief that joins a religious belief, is this a rational action or an impulsive action?

It seems a rational action would be to keep an open belief not limiting oneself to a group belief where they are told what to believe. It seems impulsive for the fact that it's a belief joined out of comfort and security along with faith that contradicts the rational.
reply report
1. 58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When I first saw the thread title I thought that I already knew what I was going to say BUT I'd have to generally agree with your comment. Beliefs in God are not the same as a religion. Like saying that a Mustang GT is a Ford ... Therefore a Ford has to be a Mustang GT.
  Some people worship God and some people worship their religion.
  Wish I could stay and watch this unfold but.. my OX is in the ditch. Gotta go ... have a great day...
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but how can God be rational rather than impulsive when there is nothing or no one that can rationally define God?
  
  You have a Great Day.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God defines Himself. The problem is that many, (most), define God in their own minds and don't listen to His Voice.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Or, more precisely, the problem is with those who hear voices.
  reply report
  61
  tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is pretending to hear voices from something you can't see rational or impulsive?
  reply report
  75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Impulsive made to appear rational.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perfect.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Depends, could be just a mental condition.
  
  It might be rational for someone to claim they hear voices if they wish to use it to support their belief system or use their belief system as an excuse for their mental condition. This way, they could appear sane... sort of. They appear "special" in that they have communications with their gods and often claim others who can't hear those same voices are not worthy or are denying their gods.
  
  As far as impulsive is concerned, we've often observed the lengths some will go when they act upon those voices. It can be frightening.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pretending is for children. Irrational are those who believe there is a God but that God cannot speak to men.
  reply report
  62
  Hokeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like schizophrenia to me. You take your meds?
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is one of the biggest problems with discussion forums like this one. No one wants to really have a serious discussion. They simply want to insult, use sarcasm or dramatics to make someone else laugh.
  
  Why is everyone so afraid to have a real discussion?
  reply report
  62
  Hokeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There can not be a real discussion with you. Whenever someone asks you something or hits you with a good point you refer back to your man made so called inspired word of God as if it is the only truth. To you if it's in your book then it is truth so there is no discussion with you. You think you have the only one true religion and that if you don't follow Jesus then you are damned. How can we possibly have a serious discussion with you?
  reply report
  75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because, the "GOD" concept, as you so nicely put isn't really of any value and when people like you bring into a discussion, you mock everyone in the discussion. Usually, it's the faithful who bring up the "GOD" concept as though it's a real person and you talk about it as though it's made of something or substance, when the truth of the matter is you know it's not substance and doesn't actually exist.
  
  There is no reason for the insults, but when you mock those that don't believe, your actions are an insult, which you don't realize. This goes for every single 'faithful' practice.
  
  If you want to talk about the proper use of 'faith', then we can have a real discussion, but if you want to irrationally justify using your faith in something not of this world, then you actions only harm others.
  
  Just a thought.
  reply report
  64
  Daddy Paulposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "when there is nothing or no one that can rationally define God? "
  This is an invalid assumption. If one follows the Christian or Islam faith one understands that God is far more powerful to us than an ant is with respect to us. For an ant to describe a human to another ant would be at best illogical.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  But at least the other ants can see that there ARE human beings, because...well, humans are material beings. Your god is imaginary. Bad analogy, try again.
  reply report
  64
  Daddy Paulposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Your god is imaginary"
  What would make you so sure of that?
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What makes you so sure he isn't?
  reply report
  64
  Daddy Paulposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is an easy one. I am an engineer and have been for many years. I understand the laws of physics very well. I am also a trained observer due to my profession. After having my fortune told quite accurately and having gone through a painful exorcism after being an engineer for many years I can assure you that there is something more powerful than us. I believe that power to be what most people refer to as God.
  reply report
  80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My question is something is controlling us then who is controlling that controller ? If there is no controller for our controller then that is our pure assumption, and if there is controller to our controller then this is chain *ad infinitum*
  reply report
  64
  Daddy Paulposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  “My question is something is controlling us then who is controlling that controller?”
  Now that is an excellent question. As a very intelligent human being who knows our controller who I shall call God, is exponentially more intelligent that I could ever hope to be would find it very difficult to understand his hierarchy. I believe it is simply a waste of my time to try to understand. The Church states there are three persons in one God. That seems reasonable.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing a church states is usually reasonable.
  reply report
  80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not reasonable but it escapes "ad-infinitum" and gives some relief so we take the easy route. Church is not reasonable with that assumption.
  reply report
  62
  Hokeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  More schizophrenia?
  reply report
  59
  Valerie Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are assuming that God is defined as "controlling us" and needing a "controller."
  
  I don't believe God is either.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  You did answer the question very easily, but some of us are not as sure, or as inclined as you are to believe things purely from conjecture. Being an Engineer does not exempt you from delusion.
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So your answer is that a) you're an engineer, b) you've had your fortune told, and c) you've had your demons exorcised.
  
  Ah, okay. I admit it was a dumb question, and I should have realized it would get an answer such as this.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then, you should clearly understand why the supernatural realm can't exist as it violates most physical laws, yes?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  'supernatural realm' 'physical laws'?
  
  there is separation between the two, except that WE perceive there is. We call it physical because of the senses -tangible. Yet, energy is both tangible AND intangible at the same time.
  
  touch your nose.
  now touch the ultra-subatomic elements of your nose.
  
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure what the point of this drivel is supposed to be, do you even have a point?
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Because I can't detect "God" with scientific investigations or with my five senses, nor can you. Just like you and I can't detect the Flying Spaghetti Monster with our senses or scientific investigation.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And, to use this analogy as an argument isn't illogical?
  reply report
2. 75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Marine,
  
  You want the answer to your question, simply look at WHY people go into religion in the first place? It's impulsive.
  reply report
3. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is meant by rational? Having an open mind and being logical are two separate things. Besides, I would think most inherit their religions.
  reply report
  75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good point.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think logical can still be open minded. When it is irrational, I think it is claiming an imagination as absolute. When it is logical, I think it's still having an open mind to think about things that contradict logic while not believing them absolute.
  reply report
4. 58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is Religion rational or impulsive..??? ..
  In order to answer that question I am inclined to ask
  Is breathing....rational or impussive
  reply report
5. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  impulsive.
  the need to belong sometimes outweighs the need to not belong.
  it works in reverse.
  those who once belonged go rogue -some to bitterness some to joy.
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I don't think that's the only reason people join religions. I'm sure it is for many, but not all.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  indeed Pandora. I was just following, as close as possible, to the opening statement. {smile}
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh shoot, oftentimes by the time I get this far back in a thread I forget what the OP was all about anyway.
  reply report
6. 65
  goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can be both depending on the person. Some induct themselves into a faith out of fear or just wanting a place to call home. These are entirely wrong reasons to subscribe to a faith. Some enter a faith on the coat tails of other people's faith. This can be fine as it is the beginnings of hope. Ideally, though, one enters a faith because their own questions have been answered and that small voice within bears witness that it is the correct action for them at that time.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The vast majority are indoctrinated into their parents belief system and have never made a choice to believe.
  reply report
  65
  goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True for many and I understand that. I've noticed that many faiths are built upon tradition. Whether one believes in it or not is beside the point. "My family is ______ and will always be ______ and that's final." I've seen this mindset a lot. Ultimately, though, when one becomes old enough to be accountable for their own actions and thoughts they do always have the option to seek out their own answers - even if it means losing their own families. I've seen this as well. If someone truly finds the answers they seek it then becomes a matter of what they are willing to sacrifice in order to hold on to those answers. Many times it's the family that does not approve and will ostricize them from the family unit. It's sad to see but is really a matter of desire for personal truth, whatever that may be.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some actually come to their senses and understand that the religion they've been indoctrinated into is merely the myths and superstitions of an age long gone, and age of ignorance and violence, an age where myths and superstitions were all the rage.
  
  Others don't, and will continue to propagate and indoctrinate their children into those cults.
  
  Families? Who cares about their families when a mythical god is more important?
  reply report
  65
  goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, again as we remain calm, collected and on solid ground it is still a matter of personal desire. I respect that you do not believe in deity. However, others do. To them, God is not mythical as it is for you. My response before was in trying to explain the thoughts and intents of some of those who do believe in some form of Higher Authority.
  
  It's the same with atheism or certain belief systems that do not subscribe to deity. Since I don't share those beliefs, if I wanted to know something about those systems I would ask someone who does acknowledge such systems. I, personally, would not presume to explain the thinking of someone who's base is different from mine. To do so inhibits the understanding of others.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The thoughts and intents have already been clouded by the indoctrination process they underwent as children. They have been told to believe in a "Higher Authority" through the use of fear and hatred. No actual choice to believe was ever made on their part. Their god is as mythical as the next god, and the next, and the next, and...
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How incredibly open minded of you to admit that you just choose to believe and it does not actually exist.
  
  Well done. Impressive. But - now you have absolutely no authority and we all agree your invisible super being (higher authority) does not actually exist.
  
  Oh dear. Now your opinion is just yours and - well - let's be honest - not very well considered. Do you understand why no one is interested now?
  
  Aww - still - never mind - you will be a GOD in the next life.
  reply report
  65
  goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your discord, however, it is obvious that you are interested. The mature and adult thing to do if one is not interested is to just ignore it altogether. So, since it has been exhibited many times that you and others are interested - what can I answer for you?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sweetie pie - yours is an evangelical religion. There are ignorant, uneducated children with an answer to a question they do not understand leaving soon-to-be trash under my windshield and in my letter box even here in the south of France.
  
  Sweetie pie - if you stop pushing your ridiculous, hate filled passive/aggresive beliefs - I stop making fun of you.
  
  Understand?
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Uh-oh there ya go right there, just a few posts later, presuming to understand the thinking of someone who's base is different than your's.
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's not true. I have seen you presume to explain the thinking of people who disagree with you several times.
  reply report
7. 59
  Valerie Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sometimes religion is rational. Sometimes it is impulsive. It varies depending entirely on the motives of each person who chooses (or rejects) a religion.
  reply report
60
kessposted 13 years ago
God is the in the midst of all religious thoughts.
Even those who dogmatically states He is not.

The question of rationality is irrelevant.

The one who believes or believes not, both would consider their belief as rational rather than impulsive.

The real question is,

"what is the deception ?"
reply report
1. 75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You state this like "GOD" really exists, yet you're using your own subjective view to claim it as real.
  
  Only a ignorant person would thinkt hat rationale is irrelevant.
  
  That's simply because they've never really be told the right way to form a belief in the first place. Had they been told, then they wouldn't be in the position where nothing else anything everyone else says, which is in disagreement with their belief to be irrelevant.
  
  What you posted. It's deceptive, misleading and subjective conjecture on your part.
  
  But, you do have a right to make your opinion known, just like I have a right to tell you that you are wrong, simply because your view is skewed, as I've told you before.
  
  Have a great day!
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As we all do every day. Indeed the reasoning that leads us to believe "I" exist is entirely subjective. Indeed that's part of the attraction of such reasoning for rationalists such as Descartes. Such reasoning doesn't require empirical data, and is therefore not reliant on the senses which are unreliable. Are suggesting there is something wrong with this person's particular example of reasoning, or are you suggesting there is something wrong with rationalism per se?
  
  "Right" according to who, according to what? What's the "right" way to form a belief? Are you certain that you form beliefs the "right" way all of the time?
  
  No more so than stating a deity doesn't exist as if it is a proven fact which has been done in this very thread. You object to "deceptive, misleading and subjective conjecture" but don't apply that objection consistently. Strong atheism represents subjective conjecture in the same way that theism does. Either you object to subjective conjecture or you don't. Objecting to it on the one hand, yet accepting it on the other is inconsistent to say the least.
  reply report
64
TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years ago
I simply do not understand this silly idea that "God has no rational definition."

A great deal of people on this planet reject the silly, IRRATIONAL idea that a random explosion resulted in an intricate universe. Thinkers FAR more intelligent than I have LOGICAL (as in the Philosophical study of logic) arguments pointing out that there must be an Intelligent Designer.

The definition of God: The entity that created the universe; the thing which can move without having to be moved. Primum Mobile. The first cause. Him Whom Nature Hath Not Formed.

Now, if we begin with the assumption that the universe was created (rather than science's ASSUMPTION, and I assure you, it IS an assumption), there is a perfectly rational definition. You don't have to believe me though. Study the history of philosophy and you will find the above-stated rational definition of God in more than one place--Thomas Aquinas' work is only one of them. Check out Descartes: He set out to prove that God DIDN'T exist, only to find that HE COULDN'T.

Just because you don't agree/believe doesn't mean that there isn't a definition for it. There are much more intelligent arguments against the existence of God.
reply report
1. 75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for pointing out that your entire statement was based on a more ridiculous assumption than that which you "CLAIM" science makes assumptions.
  
  It's obvious, you didn't learn much from your philosophy teachings.
  
  And, again, you point out the fact that some moron tried to prove "GOD" doesn't exist and found out that they couldn't prove "GOD" doesn't exist, therefore IT must exist.
  
  With you kicking and screaming, B.S. from early century garbage, you only promote the "GOD" concept, like most theologians. It's useless.
  
  The fact that you ignore is that the "GOD" concept comes as an explanation for life, when in fact, there is no god.
  
  Please take note- Reality exists and the "GOD" concept doesn't live within our objective reality. Therefore IT doesn't exist.
  
  Many people make the foolish mistake in thinking that "GOD" exists in reality. The simple truth is that the "GOD" concept was created for a time when society was growing/expanding faster than most realized, and because of Plato and some others, moronic view that "mankind is evil at the core, and must be made to answer to a higher power", is precisely why religion and the pathetic "GOD" concept exists in the first place.
  
  It was a form of control, so as to help society grow. Had you done more research than just philosophy, then you would have known this and you sad attempt at proving "GOD" exists, wouldn't have been wasted on your previous post.
  reply report
  64
  TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cags, it is obvious that you have not learned much of anything at all from whatever it is you've studied. You write and write and most of what comes out is nonsensical fluff. You contradict yourself within your OWN posts, insult people's intelligence as though your "thinking" is somehow superior (when I have seen nothing to show that it is anything more than average), and then finish off with a smiley face as though that makes what you've said somehow more polite? Get out of your own head for long enough to see what's going on in the world around you, and maybe you'll make more sense.
  
  Q: I am SO glad you don't believe me; that just reassures me that I'm on the right the track. Whether you like it or not science also begins with assumptions which cannot be proven. You or ANYONE ELSE cannot prove how the universe began. As such we are left with two branches or ways to think: EITHER the universe was created OR it wasn't. As I said, if you start with the first branch, then that leads to the rational definition of God..if you don't, then you go down the other slippery slope.
  
  At least I'm intelligent enough to realize and admit that neither position can be "carved in stone" so to speak. I'm simply speaking to the idiotic idea that we cannot have a rational definition of God. There are MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT WAYS TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD rather than by making the silly statement that there is no rational definition for the word.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Spider, Why do I say there is no rational definition of God? Because the person that defends God never fails to make irrational defenses in trying to define God.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, like most other theists, you defer to a magical kingdom when the answers to the universe have not been placed in your lap on a silver platter. Well done.
  
  A non-starter is still a non-starter, which is your so-called first branch.
  
  I wouldn't say you have much intelligence at all. You appear to be as indoctrinated a fool as any other believers.
  
  Funny how you admit there are ways to deny the existence of god but you haven't made a case to support the existence of god, but you start your arguments from that perspective, which is false, a non-starter. I won't mention how idiotic it is, either.
  reply report
2. 54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't believe you. Of course, there would be a rational definition for a god if the universe were in fact created. But, it is the first assumption that has no grounds for being made other than pure speculation while also introducing and injecting complex factors such as other realms of existence that violate the very physical laws that allow us to exist.
  
  A rational definition for this type of assumption doesn't even make it as a starter.
  reply report
3. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsense.
  
  There is no god. There is no rational explanation or definition that does not - as you have done - rely on the impossibility of disproving a negative. Nothing you have said is rational and you obviously have never read Descartes, because reading him was my first glimpse that god does not exist. Still - probably best to pretend Descartes had little choice but say what he said.
  
  Even your definition here is meaningless nonsense in an attempt to defend a wholly irrational belief that there MUST be something.
  
  Sorry - your invisible super being does not exist, and the only "rational" reason to believe in it - is because it makes you feel better to do so.
  reply report
  64
  TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How does it make me feel better to believe that there's a God who created the universe rather than a random explosion? I have listed no attributes to said God NOR have I given any personal opinion in this thread about that entity. Merely offered an understandable definition for the word since there seem to be some people here who either can't or won't read/believe a dictionary.
  
  For all you know I believe in a God who doesn't give a s*** about His creation. The fact that there's a definition for the word "God" doesn't mean anything other than that. You're reading WAY too much into my post and giving your typical knee-jerk reaction rather than actually thinking about what was said.
  reply report
  64
  Daddy Paulposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "There is no god. There is no rational explanation or definition that does not"
  I am very sorry to hear you feel that way. I shall pray for your soul.-
  reply report
  75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't waste your energy. Spend your time figuring out other more important things.
  reply report
  64
  Daddy Paulposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Don't waste your energy. Spend your time figuring out other more important things"
  You seem to be rather controlling. I shall spend my time and energy as I choose.
  reply report
  75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure you can waste your energy as you see fit. It is just a shame you see my words as controlling. It goes to show you are already controlled by something else, for which, you cannot understand or see for what it is truly.
  
  Thank you for your time.
  reply report
  64
  Daddy Paulposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I am controlled by something more powerful than you or I. I call him God. I’m very happy not understanding everything. Many people watch TV all day and use a remote controller. They have no clue as to how it really works they simply know if they hit the button the channel goes up or down. Others understand how to program a remote. Still others understand how the modulated light is transmitted to the TV. Still others understand how the key functions are converted to modulated light. Funny thing all mentioned can all watch TV.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yup - most people take the easy route, that is for sure.
  
  Religions, governments and corporations rely on it.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I really don't care what you do, although I do find it entertaining that you would waste you time hoping that I start thinking the same garbage as you. Good luck with that......
  
  I pity you. It is sad that your life is so empty you waste so much time praying that people will believe in your invisible friend.
  
  Still - as long as it makes you feel good. Although - judging from the amount of religionists I speak to with personal problems it doesn't seem to help.
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Conjecture.
  
  The existence of a deity appears correct to some and has not been disproved. The non-existence of a deity appears correct to others and has not been disproved. Therefore any argument that asserts the existence or non existence of a deity is, by definition, conjecture.
  
  Currently it is an "Undecidable conjecture", which means either position can be taken as an axiom. Theists (obviously) have taken the existence of a deity as an axiom. Likewise atheists and anti-theists, non existence.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don, while I think the point you're making is legitimate, would you consider each side of the argument having equal weighting, a 50/50 split on logic, reason, rationale? Would you also consider adding statistical possibilities and probabilities of existence and non-existence into both sides of the argument?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I beg to differ. Evolution proves the biblical god does not exist. If you accept evolution - then you must change the word of god to suit, which means the biblical god does not and can not exist.
  
  Now - if you are using the word "god" to mean some other god - please define this new god you have conjured up.
  
  You define it - I will disprove it.
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Proves no such thing. Darwinism and theism are not mutually exclusive. Evolutionary theory is a description of what is currently known about the state and history of living organisms. No more, no less. The scientific method is not capable of addressing the issue of the existence (or not) of a deity. In suggesting otherwise you are pushing scientific method beyond its scope and are in fact discrediting that method.
  
  The facts and theory of evolution can have positive implications or negative implications with regards to the issue depending on you point of view, but it can prove neither.
  
  Science can neither affirm nor deny the existence of a deity by any of the legitimate methods known collectively as the scientific method. And "the laws of nature" don't necessitate an atheist or theist world-view. People can interpret them as doing so, but interpretation is not proof.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. But, since religion claims that all life was created in its current form, man included, doesn't that wrap it up as far as evolution is concerned? Nothing actually evolved accord to religious doctrine, it was all created.
  
  Doesn't then the evidence of evolution in turn demonstrate we were in fact not created, that we had to have simple beginnings that would eventually lead us back to an abiogenesis of life?
  
  This may not prove or disprove a gods existence, one that has been argued to have "sparked" that initial life, but it does disprove religious doctrine in accordance with many of the gods purported to exist today.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Does the bible actually say that God created everything exactly the way they are today???... NO
  
  Nothing actually evolved according to religion?? You say it says... The bible doesn't say that.
  
  There are so many diffrent religions out there that you or I or anyone else can find almost anything that we want to that somebody says ... that we can prove is not right..
  Same thing can be said about things that diffrent people says about you and I.
  By your system of analogy ... You and I must not exist.
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The fact that science has no way of proving or disproving the existence of a deity does not mean theism and atheism are purely a matter of individual opinion. The lack of scientific method does not reduce us to epistemological chaos, which seems to be the assumption here. The issue is one of undetermination of theory by evidence.
  
  We don't have to abandon rationality. It's a matter of reasoned argument based on the criteria we use to judge. The difference between theists and atheist is the criteria.
  
  An atheist is no more epistemologically entitled to apply the criteria he does to the question, than a theist is in applying the criteria he does. That's an assumption made on the basis of the success of scientific method in relation to certain types of knowledge.
  
  But if scientific method can't address the issue, then we must either abandon the issue as unanswerable; sit back and say that all answers are equally valid; or move to a different criteria. None of these options are an abandonment of reason.
  
  As for statistical probabilities. They aren't helpful. The most we can say from such work is that something is probable or improbable, nothing else. However the argument that something's existence is improbable, therefore it does not exist is logically invalid.
  
  Indeed according to current accepted scientific theory, at the time just after the big bang the likelihood of intelligent life (or even matter) developing in the universe was extremely low. So if the argument of improbability is anything to go by, then we must conclude that we ourselves can't exist.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It has been stated by many believers here they can hear, see and speak to their gods. They have experiences for which they claim divine intervention. These are phenomena that would require the supernatural to interact with our physical world, hence we would have a measurable effect. Experiments could be conducted and results reviewed.
  
  But, just like the eather theory had collapsed when the experiment showed null results, so should the theory of the supernatural and the claims of believers.
  
  That's not what occurred with the eather theory. It did not have equal validity once the experiment showed null results. It disappeared entirely in favor of another theory. That's where we should be headed with religion based on the your post, abandon the issue and move on to a different criteria. There are other alternatives with consistent observable results.
  
  The issue then becomes a situation where the believer refuses to view any other alternatives and only clings to a null hypothesis. Stalemate. Meanwhile, the other theories are gaining momentum as more evidence accumulates while the null hypothesis continues to show null results.
  
  But, the believer continues to cling to the null hypothesis.
  
  I'll give you that one. When the universe was nothing but a sea of radiation, who knew then that you and I'd be pleasantly discussing it today? A infinitesimally small probability, I'm sure.
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're making some assumptions here. Even assuming those assumptions are correct, the leap of logic you are making is too great.
  
  Let's assume, as you have, that all theists are using "hear, see and speak" in the common sense of the terms, all of the time. In truth I don't believe that's the case, but let's assume it is.
  
  Let's also assume, as you have, that it's possible to prove via objective, verifiable, observable, empirical data that someone is not experiencing something. I don't believe this is possible - although we can observe activity in the brain, we cannot directly observe what someone "hears" or "sees", which is why experience is subjective - but let's take both these assumptions as true.
  
  Even assuming both these to be true, the leap from "X did not experience a deity" to "therefore a deity does not exist" cannot be logically supported. The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise. The argument is logically invalid. It does not constitute proof a deity does not exist.
  
  To see this, switch it around. Let's assume it has been proven that X was indeed "seeing" or "hearing" something unexplained. Would you accept this as proof a deity exists? I hope not; It proves only that on certain instances observed for the purpose of the experimentation, X experienced something unexplained. It says no more and no less than that.
  
  How we interpret such results depends, but beware confirmation bias.
  
  Part 2:
  
  You are suggesting that a deity has no utility function as an explanatory hypothesis, i.e. has no use as a way of explaining the way the world is. In doing so you are implying that existence of a deity may be ignored as improbable and irrelevant and therefore discarded.
  
  However the causality attributed to a deity in some theistic beliefs can be reconciled with the notion of "natural laws". In other words, as I said in a different post, the laws of nature do not necessitate an atheist world view. The fact that the relationships between those laws can be investigated and described through the process of scientific method does not eliminate the existence of a deity. Indeed it is entirely consistent with the type of causality attributed to a deity in some theistic beliefs, e.g. christianity.
  
  You are talking about applying the process of scientific method to all knowledge. Theists (and agnostics, as well as some atheists) simply say that some beliefs and insights are outside the scope of scientific method, so other means are required to examine and investigate them.
  
  So theists address the question with a completely different set of criteria than non-theists. Therein lies the problem. The "proof" and "evidence" which form such a huge and important part of our collective approach to knowledge (understandably given the success of that approach) has very little (if any) importance with regard to theistic belief. That's not to say theists have abandoned reason. Not at all. Theology represents theistic reasoning. It is not a lack of reasoning. The reasoning is there and can be followed, but just starts from a different frame of reference.
  
  So essentially what you are doing is applying your own reasoning, based on your frames of reference, to that of reasoning based on a different frame of reference. In short you are comparing chalk and cheese. The result of applying the criteria of "proof" or "evidence" to a theistic world view leads you to conclude that said world view is deficient. But all it actually shows is that the world view is deficient according to the criteria you are applying to it. That set of criteria is not the only set of criteria, and indeed not necessarily the most successful, depending on how you define "successful". Having an accurate description of "natural laws" is one way of defining "successful", but not the only way.
  
  Epistemologically speaking atheists are no more justified in their world view than theists are in theirs. Both make sense according to their own criteria. That can be difficult to swallow for both theists and non theists, but that does not stop it being the case.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In all the answers I've been given by theists, they have confirmed they do hear, see and speak to their gods according to the definitions of 'hearing, seeing and speaking.' If they were referring to some other form of communication, then they most likely would have said so.
  
  Why wouldn't you believe it's possible? You can check out the Neuroscience Journal or visit the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium site for the latest findings if you don't believe they can monitor the brains activities.
  
  I would agree with you, but that conclusion had not come to pass. The conclusion was that the hypothesis continued to produce null results. I also mentioned this does not indicate some deity does not exist. It merely demonstrates that the hypothesis has not produced results and that other theories had consistent results. Abandon the null hypothesis and proceed working with that which produces results.
  
  If some day the hypothesis actually begins to produce results, we can return to it and see if it fits well with the other theories.
  
  I couldn't agree with you more. Why then do believers jump to the conclusion that it is proof a deity exists?
  
  Part Deux
  
  Actually, the inclusion of a deity in explaining the way the world is only serves to add more complexity to already simple answers.
  
  While I would agree with that, there is the problem of such theistic beliefs, e.g. christianity, that bring into the argument the concept of other realms of existence, which clearly violate many of our known physical laws. These realms are not consistent with our laws and serve only to topple the theist argument.
  
  Fair enough. The problem I have with that though is the fact that whatever system or method is employed by the theist to gather their knowledge is completely unknown to me. My observations are that theists gather all their knowledge from their scriptures. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If there is some method to it, could someone please explain what it is and how it works?
  
  The reasoning applied is shared by many others, it is a method used to understand the world around us, and it works well at doing just that. If you're able to explain what exactly the "frame of reference" theists are using, I would gladly apply a relativistic observation and formula so that we are comparing chalk to chalk and cheese to cheese.
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't believe all Christians use the term "hear" or "see" god in a literal sense. In fact I know at least one or more that don't, which refutes that assumption.
  
  While I believe brain activity can be observed, we cannot directly observe what someone perceives. I cannot see or hear something exactly as you are seeing or hearing it, or independently experience something exactly as you are experiencing it. Experience is still subjective. Regardless, both assumptions were accepted as true to evaluate the argument so any disagreement on the truth of them, though interesting, is moot.
  
  I see your reasoning, which is based on the assumption that the process of scientific method can produce a result in relation to this question but as yet has been unable to. That assumption can't be made here.
  
  Why? Because of the nature of science, and how a deity is defined in certain religions. Such definitions preclude the possibility of objective, verifiable observation, i.e. scientific evidence. So the question of a deity can't be addressed either now or in the future without either changing the definitions of a deity in certain religions, or changing the scope of science.
  
  So we are in a position where we are saying we can't investigate or explore the question of a deity by applying the process of scientific method, because of the very nature of science.
  
  We can't say the same of religion. Clearly religion does investigate and explore the question of a deity. What you are saying is that it doesn't prove the existence of a deity. But proving is not the business of religion. Religion has an entirely different criteria in terms of its approach to knowledge. Supporting evidence is part of the criteria of "success" within scientific method. However it is not a significant criteria within the religious approach to knowledge, specifically knowledge relating to that of whichever deity is in question. Simply put: in religion supporting evidence is not an important part of the criteria used for determining truth in relation to god; or at least not evidence in the scientific sense of the term.
  
  So in terms of a deity as defined by some religions, science is out. Even in terms of the mechanisms by which apparent divine interaction takes place with the natural world.
  
  So it's at this point that we either reject the question as an irrelevance; accept that we can't scientifically validate any answers to the question (as we have no way of doing so) therefore all answers are equally valid or invalid; or investigate the question using a different approach to knowledge (an unscientific approach).
  
  This is the choice faced by every reasonable person. But we rarely consciously make that choice. Instead the choice is made through various socio-political, cultural, historical, psychological factors. The important point is that epistemologically speaking, none of these approaches are more justified than another. Choosing from any one of them is as reasonable as choosing any other.
  
  While the subject of theists frame of reference, approach to knowledge etc. is something I find interesting, I think I must cut this post here and either comment another time, or indeed write a hub on the subject instead.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I recall a hubber here with the word "chief" in his userid, he claimed to have literally "seen" Jesus at the age of 10.
  
  It would be a good question for a thread to have believers attempt to describe those experiences in terms we can define to give us a better understanding, perhaps.
  
  Notwithstanding, brain activity can be observed and mapped, therefore the brain activity of a believer undergoing an experience can be mapped and studied. We can then see where in the brain this activity originates and see if it matches or resembles other patterns. Bit by bit a well defined picture of how these experiences function can be put together.
  
  Not really, the brain activity of a believer undergoing an experience does resemble other patterns, many resemble forms of schizophrenia. And it is this reason why the results of these findings are in hot debate and being carefully examined.
  
  Then essentially, you have defined a system where any and all possibilities exist, where the irrational is rational, black is white, up is down, and so on...
  
  Simply put: anything goes.
  
  Of course, we have no choice in the matter. Any terrestrial system invented by men could not possibly compete with a system in which the violation of physical laws reigns supreme. It is even pointless to ponder such an ideal.
  
  I beg to differ, the system you just described has no place where reason abounds. Choosing that system basically means anything that can be conjured from the imagination MUST be considered real until proven otherwise. And since the system has a built in safeguard of having the capacity to over ride physical laws, then the conjured MUST be real if claimed within the confines of that system.
  
  Of course, the problem begins when the conjured that is claimed to be real within the confines of that system are also claimed to be real and can affect our physical world, too. Back to square one.
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed.
  
  I respect what Don is saying, to a point, but I'm not sure I agree with what seems to be his conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong Don, but you seem to be getting at is that we should all just sit back and pretend that everyone's viewpoint has a valid place in society regardless of what it is or how it affects society?
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  That's absolutely not my viewpoint. I think we should first understand that our behaviour affects others in society, not our belief. Doesn't belief drive behaviour? Yes, but behaviour can, and is, also influenced by the subjective norm of a society or group.
  
  So I think establishing common values is vital if people of different beliefs are to live in a society. If behaviour does not conform to those common values - which are decided through the process of group decision making, i.e. politics - then it doesn't matter what the belief is, the behaviour must be addressed.
  
  However, epistemologically speaking, we cannot say that non theism has more 'warrant' than theism. When faced with a belief or concept which, because of it's nature, cannot be proved or disproved, we have some options. 1) Ignore it as irrelevant. 2) accept any theory relating to the concept as equally valid/invalid. 3) accept we can't apply the criteria of "proof" (evidentialism) and try to explore the concept as best we can in some other way with a different approach to knowledge.
  
  I'm not advocating one of those options in particular, I'm saying that epistemologically speaking no one option from these three is more 'warranted' than the others.
  
  Choosing to ignore the concept of god as irrelevant is as equally 'justified', intellectually speaking, as accepting that the criteria of "proof" can't be applied and exploring the concept via a personal, emotional, intellectual endeavour, e.g. spirituality of which religion is one type.
  
  So when the truth of a certain concept can't be determined, we can ignore it, explore it, accept anything concerned with it as right/wrong. But we can't say that one of these three options is more useful in determining the truth of the concept than the other two. That's the whole point. The truth of the concept can't be determined. How we respond to it therefore is a matter of choice. Either way, that choice is not based on a criteria of "proof". It's not that there is no supporting evidence. It's that the whole notion of (scientific) evidence with regard to such concepts is simply non applicable.
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I think it would. I have no doubt some theists believe they have literally seen or heard a deity, but I very much doubt all theists would make such a claim.
  
  Observing a mapping of brain activity is not the same as observing the persons thoughts or perceptions directly. The difference is akin to looking at a map of a city, compared with actually being in the city. Looking at patterns or mapping brain activity is not the same as being able to jump in to someone else's perception. We still cannot do that and I'd be very surprised if you are suggesting otherwise.
  
  This is really not the point. Let me cut to the chase: Because of the nature of a deity (all encompassing) and the nature of science (necessarily narrow in scope) any scientific data can be interpreted in a way which is consistent with theistic belief. Science cannot address such an interpretation, let alone refute it.
  
  E.g. The Big Bang? "part of gods creation". Science can describe the big bang, even help us determine whether there was a big bang, but it can't tell us anything about the truth of the hypothesis that it's "part of god's creation". So theism can encompass scientific knowledge, but science cannot address theism.
  
  Why? Science cannot address anything beyond its scope (broadly speaking the laws of nature). A deity (which encompasses the laws of nature) is beyond its scope. Therefore it cannot address the notion of a deity.
  
  So in relation to perceiving. Science can describe the brain activity patterns of someone said to be perceiving god. But that's all. That data can then be interpreted various ways, including a theistic interpretation. Science can help us create an accurate description, and it can help us test any interpretation within its scope. It cannot test any interpretation beyond its scope and theistic interpretations are beyond its scope for the reasons above. So you end up back at square one, with just another theistic interpretation that you can't scientifically refute.
  
  Theism is discriminate in terms of what beliefs are considered justified and true, i.e. what is considered knowledge. The criteria is just different. Work in the philosophical area of epistemology, which as you know investigates theories of knowledge, is useful in this regard. Suffice it to say, a theory of knowledge with a different criteria to evidentialism does not equate to a theory of knowledge in which "anything goes".
  
  Again the assumption that any theory of knowledge that is not evidentialism amounts to epistemological anarchy. Everything we believe is founded on assumption. If it wasn't we'd fall foul of the infinite regress of justification. We don't because at a certain point of practicality we just assume certain things to be true. That does not lead to epistemological anarchy. It allows us to live in the world, free from the paralysis of the complete skeptic. Theistic belief is no different in that regard. It is founded on the same assumptions we all make with regard to everyday life.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Regardless, if the claim was made, science can follow up on it if there is in fact something to see, hear or speak to.
  
  There is a tremendous amount neuroscience can learn about the brain, whether they can jump into someones else perception isn't that relevant when brain activity can be observed.
  
  That's your opinion of the situation, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
  
  Again, agree to disagree.
  
  Once again.
  
  Sorry Don, I have to disagree with that based on the fact that any effects on our physical universe can be measured and tested with science.
  
  The system theists use certainly does. Magic and the violation of physical laws reigns supreme over all other forms of knowledge and how they are acquired and used.
  
  Paralysis of the complete skeptic? So, your saying it's perfectly acceptable for the believer to claim whatever they want to any extreme they wish and this is equivalent to any other assumption we might make?
  
  Sorry Don, that one doesn't fly at all. The claims of believers are far fetched compared to everyday life scenarios. Theirs are ones that violate physical laws, where magic exists and rules over everything else. With not a shred of evidence to support these claims, you're saying they will allow us to live "free from the paralysis of the skeptic."
  
  I would have to retire to bedlam on that one.
  reply report
  84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Like you I see no reason to labour the other points we disagree on. Thanks for an interesting discussion. But...
  
  This last point is not what what I'm saying at all. A rejection of the classical foundationalist criteria of what constitutes justified belief does not equate to rejecting criteria per se, only this particular criteria.
  
  Is there good reason to reject it? Yes. The classical foundationalist criteria holds that a belief is justified if it is basic, i.e self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses.
  
  However this criteria itself is neither self-evident, incorrigible, nor evident to the senses. So the classical foundationalist criteria is, according to the criteria itself, epistemologically unjustified (irrational). So classical foundationalism is logically incoherent. What I'm suggesting is this particular criteria of justified belief is at fault.
  
  There are everyday beliefs we hold that are not self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses. Indeed there are certain every day beliefs which are not formed on the basis of evidence at all. Yet no reasonable person considers such beliefs unjustified. E.g. the belief that other minds exist outside of our own. Such belief is (can only be) an assumption. It's not based on evidence.
  
  Indeed anything the empiricist presents as evidence can be doubted by the sceptic. So the empiricist needs evidence to support the evidence, to support the evidence, to support the evidence, ad infinitum. This is the infinite regress of justification problem. Logically a sceptic would need to doubt everything. If everything is doubted, every action is doubted. Hence "paralysis of the sceptic" (by sceptic I mean someone who holds the position of epistemological scepticism, not the common meaning of someone who simply questions certain things).
  
  But in practical terms we don't do this. Because at some point we simply stop doubting. We suspend our disbelief. There is no way to prove someone else has a mind (we don't even know what a mind is) but we believe it anyway. It seems as though other minds exist and there is no way to prove it either way, so we just assume it to be true.
  
  Why we do this is a different debate. It's certainly useful to make such assumptions. But the point is that there are very ordinary beliefs which we all commonly hold that are, according to the classical foundationalist criteria, irrational. So either everyone's belief is unjustified, or there is something wrong with the criteria being used to determine what is justified belief and what isn't. I think it's the latter.
  
  If that's the case then it requires a re-evaluation of certain beliefs, including theistic belief. Note this isn't about the truth or falsehood of such beliefs, it's about the epistemic justification of beliefs. Just to pre-empt any misunderstanding, I don't think any belief that can't be proven is justified. There is a criteria but that would be too much detail to enter into here. And of course the question of whether such belief is justified has no bearing on whether such beliefs are true or not. That's an entirely different discussion. But there clearly is an issue with the current criteria used to determine what is or ins't justified belief.
  report
4. 73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  We don't need to study Philosophy. We only need mere common sense to ascertain that the belief in a god is irrational.
  reply report
5. 84
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not being able to disprove something doesn't make it true. In the same way not being able to prove something doesn't make it false.
  It simply means it can't be proven either way. Nothing more, nothing less.
  reply report
75
Cagsilposted 13 years ago
You're too funny.
reply report
80
skyfireposted 13 years ago
Religion was never started on rational base. But then some people just love to stay in some imaginary world playing with unicorn, sky-daddy and souls. I've no right to break this illusion till it affects me personally.
reply report
1. 75
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I guess then you have the right to come out and voice your opposition to the "GOD" concept, because the influence it has on the world is what is purposely making your life harder.
  reply report
  80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If it was that easy, then i could have educated people from peaceful-religion who attacked my city last week. Some religions are beyond any way of education, compromise and tolerance. Let them destroy things we can't help it, as it just backfires us.
  reply report
60
kessposted 13 years ago
Hello Spider,

In this world there are sons of God and servants of God.

I find that the servants are guite happy to remain servants, despite the fact that they can be Sons.

It is evident by their obvious passion.
reply report
1. 64
  TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey there Kess,
  
  *waves* Yeah...I ought to know better than to get involved in these conversations. LOL
  
  How are you?
  reply report
80
skyfireposted 13 years ago
For creator even humans are close to ant. Picking up a favorite ant from lot is as illogical as calling some human favorite of creator or creator loving his creations.
reply report
61
Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago
I think I'd call belief in a religion irrationally compulsive.

Naw, seriously, I guess it can be rational up to a point. When I was trying to figure it out and asking a bunch of questions, someone said to me that a great deal of men far wiser than he and I had already addressed all those questions.

To him, it seemed perfectly rational to rest his faith in their intelligence. Call me overly egotistic, to me it didn't.

But you know, alot of people are alot more modest than I.

If 76% of the people are doing it, and it's been done for almost 2000 years, some people would guess it's the right thing to do. That might seem rational.

I think maybe for those people who never really look at it for themselves, it could all pass as rational. It's the people who start studying it who become irrational. People who really have to swallow so much bull dooky to get where they are and still believe.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think believing because the majority believes or believing because it has been believed so long is very rational. I think this is believing on impulse to be part of a group when you don't want to think of the answers independently.
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I agree personally, but it is I think kind of high expectations to expect average people to be capable of working it all out. I think most religious believers are just trying to do what they think is the right and good thing to do.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Salvation is a personal experience. My salvation has nothing to do with anyone else's salvation. I did not come to Jesus by way of others. I came by way of Jesus Himself.
  
  Because there are others who believe in Jesus as I do does not make it a social gathering, nor does it mean that I am following because others are. I do it because I choose to.
  reply report
  85
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would suggest you do it for exactly the same reason as other religionists. A belief in the "word"
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You can suggest whatever you want. Makes no difference at all to me and doesn't bother me at all either.
  reply report
64
TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years ago
Not sure how this turned into a question about control...but humans (whether random or designed) have a free will. I am not "controlled" by anything other than myself.

The existence of a God does not negate the existence of free will.
reply report
1. 73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  If God is omniscient and already knows the outcome, it negates free will.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I know that if I gave my son a hammer when he was small that there would be a lot of damge done. Doesn't mean he didn't know better nor negate his freewill to do so.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  AGAIN, if God already knows the outcome, there is no free will!
  If God does not know the outcome, then he is not omniscient, and is, by definition, NOT GOD!!
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me why you keep posting your crap from your evil god?
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is the most nonsensical response I have ever seen you post. My statement is very logical, yet you respond with this stupidity! Do you even understand reality? You seem to be lacking in the basic understanding of reading and comprehesion. And you know nothing about the art of argument. This insane belief you have in your insane god has caused your brain to short-circuit. This is PURE nonsense and childish jeering, and is in no way connected to my statement. Get some help!
  reply report
  64
  TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You ever read a "choose your own adventure" novel? Because this is a universe run by certain laws then there are only a finite number of options from which to choose. God is aware of all the possible choices--none of which can ultimately go against God's ultimate destiny for the universe--but within which humans have a number of choices that it is possible for them to make--thus free will within a defined paradigm.
  
  Not that it matters to most of you folks anyway.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  But there is only one choice that will ultimately be made, and that choice is predetermined by an omniscient god, right?
  reply report
  64
  TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, my dear, you've got it backwards--the one choice has already been made (i.e., to give the gift of life). You, and everyone else, are already living in free will as a result of that choice, and anything else comes as the natural result of whatever choices you make.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  BACKWARDS??!!
  reply report
  64
  TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah B-A-C-K-W-A-R-D-S; as in you're putting at the end what you should be putting at the beginning...which of the letters in that word offends you so? You're sitting here nagging at SirDent about having conversation that doesn't end in nonsense and that's the best you can do?
  
  God already made the decision to give the gift of life...everything else, including your free will comes as the result of that choice, which has already been made. The ultimate destiny of the universe is to be filled with life.
  
  I'm not sure why so many people, believers included, cannot get hold of this idea. It is simplicity itself.
  
  BTW, if you were assuming that I believe that God levels some sort of eternal punishment or something at the "end time" you'll have to talk to someone else about that. I don't believe in the kind of stupid god who would create things then torture them for eternity or anything dumb like that. Even when we face our Creator, it will be our own personal choices that determine whether we live or die.
  
  And with that...I must be off to run some errands. I'll be back later.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Your ideas about your creator are incongruous with logic, eventhough you have convinced yourself of your intellectual acumen on the subject. You make no sense. Any belief in a god seems to always end in confused babbling when confronted with reason. And you say your perception is simple. Yes it is simple--simply nonsensical.
  
  You have explained nothing.
  reply report
  61
  tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just so !
  End of the discussion
  reply report
  85
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I wish it were the end of these ridiculous religious forums!
  No sane person goes around trying to convince one and all that there are fairies in the sky that tell them how WE should live our lives!
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And yet you are here speaking out against all of us insane people. I wonder if you treat handicapped people the same way?
  
  This is what I see. I am called delusional, a schitso, a psychotic, ignorant, and stupid, probably more that I forgot. And you ridicule me just the same as if I was retarded, insane, have to use crutches to walk etc. . .
  
  I wonder how many of you actually bully people like that. If you really thought I was any or all of those that I wrote above, you would leave me alone, but yet you don't.
  
  Just for the record, I have never mentioned fairies before this comment.
  reply report
  85
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I treat all people the same, regardless of their condition. You abuse me with your god, I respond in kind.
  reply report
  73
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  People who are retarded, use crutches, etc, don't have a choice. Religion is an irrational choice, which is why it attracts ridicule.
  reply report
  80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ditto.
  
  Evolution has enough evidence that it is without creator,anyone disprove this ? now claiming those evidence are wrong is more childish and shows lack of knowledge . Have to agree with you oli, religion is choice of deluded extremists and those who claim god exist should present evidence first but all i can expect from wanna-be god exist believers is personal attack.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The handicapped didn't choose to be handicapped. Big difference.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  knowing the outcome does not change the rules of a game, nor alter the course of that outcome. Foresight is different from manipulation. I can know that my kid will bang his toe if he does a,b,c; doesn't mean he doesn't have the Free Will to do it.
  
  Knowing all outcome is having full understanding, not being a puppet master.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But, you see, God knows exactly what's going to happen. there can be no alteration in the course, because the course is set. It will progress exactly the way God knows it is.
  
  So what kind of free will does that give us? Because the outcome is predicated on us making EVERY choice along the way that would be conducive to said outcome. It has to be exact.
  
  You have backed yourself into a conundrum.
  reply report
  60
  kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The truth is God will get his way, no matter what, and the believer or the lack thereof will also get his way no matter what,
  be it for better for worst.
  
  Perfect scenario, knock your self out, it all good which ever way it goes.
  
  I have chosen the path of wisdom.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  WISDOM??!!! You have chosen the path of fear and delusion. Why can't you come up with a better reply than this nonsense? This is a debate, not a place for delusional absurd rantings. This is what happens when supporters of lies are backed into corners.
  reply report
  61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeh she never makes sense. Just rambles on meaninglessly about how mystically enlightened she is. I usually skip her posts entirely.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Thank you. I will do likewise!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, no i haven't.
  You are assuming He controls that particular course, in that you must go left even if you wanted to go right -manipulation.
  however, knowing ALL directions, all events within, all outcomes;
  able to judge, reason, apply, remove, see and prepare ALL possible outcomes -this is omnipotence -all places at all times in all things.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In addition, free will is the ability for one to choose all possible options, explore them and decide the best course.
  
  parent-child relationships work this exact way.
  are you violating their free will by giving them choices, options?
  on the contrary, you are giving them unlimited opportunity to choose.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Your response is neither persuasive nor rational. You need to really expand your mind beyond the human concept. You are stuck in your on head, and haven't the depth to grasp the concept of omniscience. You are still describing a human "god"
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and?
  my response was/is spot on to your claim regarding and free will. no surprising the automatic deflect by stamping a label of 'human god' into the rebuttal. Obviously you have some desire to consider such or you would not engage such discussion. Same as 'Q'.
  
  Glad to be an enabler for your need to know.
  
  Cheers.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Need to know what?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  precisely, Q. you said it for me.
  
  cheers.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  I just did not see your reply as being a rational answer to my proposition. In fact, your answer was just plain wrong!
  
  If you are so spot on, then what is the difference between God and humans? Your God concept seems to be just as human as I am. The evidence is still, overwhelmingly, in favor of no god.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  wrong? as if you know i am. lol. thank you, that was funny.
  
  now, what actual -if you please- evidence of no 'god' exists.
  Do be specific w/out scientific pseudo babble.
  hard proof, tangible fact, evidence.
  
  thanks.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  I also have no evidence of 'no unicorn.' The fact is that the nonexistence of these things is self evident. Am I to abdicate my mind for nonsensical perceptions?
  
  When something is imaginary, I don't need to show evidence that it is imaginary, because it already has all the attributes of imaginary objects.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  indeed, abdication of mind would prove most valuable.
  thanks for -again- deflecting, proves something entirely.
  
  imagination: of an image; a perception; an idol.
  too funny this 'new age thinking'.
  
  science & religion, what a couple.
  
  i have to jet, enjoy your work in the Need To Know factory before it shuts down.
  
  cheers.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  You are too funny sweetie pie. Not even sure why you bother saying anything. See my book - "spiritual enlightenment in just 5 days." I will thrown in "meaningless rhetoric - a study course" for free.
  
  ciao
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  wow, advancing the time line. 21...14...7, now 5.
  when's blastoff?
  
  ps, how goes the narcissist blog going?
  still all by your 'self'.
  
  you're a hoot my friend.
  report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your whole aim is to blow smokescreens. You lack the skill to debate. and your positions are nonsensical and indefensible. You should be amused at yourself and not me, for you are the laughable side of this exchange.
  report
  85
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.
  I made the same observation some time ago.
  Logic gets a bit thin on the ground around these forums at times.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you all 'know' so much.
  all i see are grand assumptions and personal attacks.
  and rightly so. perhaps this is the definition of 'new logic' -endless arteries of conjecture.
  
  just for once answer the question:
  
  prove this theory of yours: the no-god theory.
  prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
  provide evidence, fact, documentation, history, something other than speculative argument and rabbit0hole parallels of the NTK.
  give me a reason to believe you, else don't bug me.
  report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, we shouldn't bug him with reason.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  'you' apparently know me? ha!
  'you' don't and don't assume 'you' do.
  'you' mean nothing to me, nor 'your' assumptions.
  why should 'you' be so concerned.
  according to 'you' and 'your' fellow narc's it doesn't matter, cause when 'you' die, 'you' seize to exist.
  
  why all the noise then?
  enjoy 'your' life...
  report
  59
  Valerie Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is a difference between knowing the outcome and determining the outcome.
  reply report
  73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Oh yeah, that's right, he only determines the outcome when we pray, right? What was I thinking?
  
  Silly silly silly silly god!!!
  reply report
2. 80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you're designed then no matter what decisions you made with free-will are among set of results that was under design of designer. So your free-will is assumption to any intellect higher than you who created you. So it is not free-will.
  reply report
66
awareposted 13 years ago
non believers want what believers want . more so even . they need it their starving for it . they demand it . its proof. two peas in a pod i say
reply report
0
SirDentposted 13 years ago
You all can go ahead and have your fun. Maybe one day you will be serious about something. I am going offsite for a while now.
reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago
No it's impulsive, there I was having group sex with wild women and gay men. I was doing drugs showing everyone my pornography collection while pulling on agave juice. I heard a noise out side and I saw it was my neighbors wife so I went out and told her she needed to come in all the while telling her husband wouldn't mind. Then, BAM! I jumped up and yelled," It's time for Church!" I threw on my sunday dud's and never looked back!

Ps- I got a sin proof guarantee for a modest 10% of my increase!
reply report
1. 62
  Hokeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK! That's it! I have to like you now! This is just too good. We are now friends.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cool!
  reply report
85
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
The moment I hear voices from a "god", it will be off to the doctor for me!
reply report
1. 62
  Hokeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  (WHISPERING) Earnest, Earnest, Come to the father
  
  (Earnest) Shut up DAD! Go to sleep!!!!!
  
  reply report
2. 59
  Valerie Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And suppose the doctor finds nothing wrong, you get a second opinion, and that doctor also finds nothing wrong?
  reply report
0
barryliamposted 13 years ago
Amen
reply report
58
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
everything in life is as much good as it can be bad.
Even religion. There is as much good to say about it is there is bad, Live has a great balance.
reply report
57
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
Religion is needed by society to put order into it, its a human calling to search for HIM
reply report
1. 61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No it's not. Religion is needed by the powerful to control the masses.
  reply report
2. 54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Could be the reason why prisons are full of Christians.
  reply report
  59
  Valerie Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The reasons why prisons are full of Christians is because atheists offer nothing along the line of prison ministry.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? And, here all along I thought it was because they were hypocrites saying one thing and doing another. Silly me.
  reply report
59
Alotaposted 13 years ago
it is neither rational nor impulsive, its like good sex, some get it some dont...simple
reply report
1. 61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good sex with an imaginary lover? Yeah, christian girls are weird.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
Don, it is and always will be conjecture.

Especially those who at one point -by their own free will/no gun to the head- chose to believe and may have been involved with some sort of religion based on those beliefs.

It is both head shaking and laughable, yet undeniable.
The limited logic/sensation of man will always contain conflict.
reply report
58
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
I think that "IF" the theory of evolution were "absolutely" true.
This would NOT prove that there is no God. It would prove that some of the "concepts" that were "interpreted" as having been written is the bible are false.

To say that a proof of evolution proves that there is no God is like saying that because a "belief" as to how something began is incorrect there must not have been a beginning.

I "know" that many people's INTERPRETATIONS of end time prophesy are incorrect. And many peoples belief as to how it all began is incorrect.
Does this prove that none of this is real ??
We must then be nothing but a figment of the imagination of SOMETHING that is real.
And if that is true we can then do anything that this something allows us to do within IT'S imagination
reply report
1. 80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Abiogenesis talks about origin of life and not evolution. So evolution facts points to the evolution of species without any creator. So this is where bible and other religious books were wrong. "Origin of species without creator" and "evolution of species without creator" both are different things.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What ever we call them ? They can not prove how the origin of life came into being,or before that. It does prove that MANY previous concepts of this is false. One can not totally disprove another.
  Evidence is what it is. Everyone wants to jump to false conclusions based upon our own precepts as to what these things prove or doesn't prove.
  
  I have to go finish a paint job today so will see yA LATER.
  reply report
  80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They do prove that previous fairy tales were wrong. They do prove that noah's ark is just metaphor, zeus as myth. etc etc.
  
  Gap of knowledge doesn't mean deluded assumptions as right. Only false conclusion that we do is "assume god exist and he talks with us and asks us to follow this or that", right ? If we assume" god doesn't exists, is there any psychological/physical harm?". If you become skeptical you'll see there is flaw in being theist, atheist, agnostic,More flaws are in the order they're written here.
  reply report
85
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
I got untangled from indoctrination once I looked at the probability factor. The chances of evolution based on what we know?
as opposed to the probability that an invisible human like (psychotic) entity made us? Religion is bunk! No one can agree who or what their god is, does, or controls. Obviously bunk.
Not one single peice of evidence since the beginning of time for the existence of any of the hundreds of gods. All the stories are based on previous people, stories and fables, it's all bunk I tells ya!!
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
that said, especially Earnest & Q, then all your rhetoric regarding said god/religion is also "bunk"/ "wrapped up". Simply put: you are confessing/professing against a thing you apparently think/assume/believe/are certain/know does not exist.
Ambiguity is a nicely gift wrapped package as well.

Your 'fables/myths' are no different than those you argue against.
Call it logic, evolution, intelligent design, hypothesis, science, even die-sky-fairy-die!

It's all the same.

George Carlin: "It's all BS folks and its bad for ya".

to quote myself: "Ambiguous perception in choice avoid, rather than purity of purpose."

Show us purity in your purpose apart from the rhetoric, please.
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
Don W, i have never read a more thorough, rational and logical response anywhere in these threads. My hat to you.

With regard to your reply:

either method of logical application, by said view or either, dismisses both, i think. Why? Because it is not necessary to consider a question nor its opponent, an answer. Both are point A/B infinite. Relationary parallels within human logic (assumed or indentified), consciousness aka the Need To Know.

Cheers.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your causality loop is functionally inadequate, causing logical fallacies to appear as sub-miniscule quantum particles in the datastream - often mistaken for proficiency, when in fact the recognition mode is transgressing using assumptive reasoning creating pseudo or fabricanted ken. Surely you must see the issue with this and accept the obvious conclusion that the "need to know" is in fact a palliative catholicon serving only to increase the rhetorician's pomposity?
  
  Tally ho.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  rhetoric involves argument, of which both apply solely to logic.
  remove logic and you remove those parameters within it.
  (ex: do not add 1 and 1). Assumption can only occur within the assumed, yes?
  
  true any "recognition" is transgressive (what I consider sin or consciousness). So long as one remains within the finite loop - quantified, calculated or presumed - is still subject to the parallel.
  
  the notion then: escape the "Need to Know Factory".
  
  ho tally!
  reply report
0
StormRyderposted 13 years ago
Is this rational?
reply report
1. 61
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my goodness. Someone alert the press.
  
  Too funny.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
I agree to a point with this, Q. Because the general populous of theist do in fact base all their knowledge from 'scripture'. Most but not all. Still, the use of literature to apply knowledge or seek knowledge is done by all people. There are few who provide evidence beyond the literature.

99.9% of theists solely use literature to secure their belief, which actually contradicts the basis and totality of that belief.

It is that 0.1% that uses a different method. That method cannot be fully explained by reason/logic alone -in part perhaps, it totality, no.
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
getitrite,

The ability to design and understand every possible scenario/outcome is what makes it so awesome. We cannot conclude -in full use of our own knowledge- a single shred of energy that begins even a single thought. Perhaps when (or if) any human does, then they might have ground to dismiss the Creators existence. Until then, there is either cynicism or faith.
reply report
1. 73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  True, we are finite beings trying to comprehend the properties of eternity.
  
  Faith and cynicism are equal?
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
That is a fair hypothesis, Q. Even such a consideration is awesome. The ability to design such a 'system', its framework, method, data, expression -especially with regard to imagery- would be nothing short of phenomenal.

This sums up precisely why i personally believe in the Creator.
This is where {i am guessing here} you, me and many others agree this thing called religion is a stumbling block towards that consideration.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Selectively quoting opposing opinions in an attempt to give the impression that something was said when it was not? .
  
  Oh - yes - People who believe in a creator do that a lot.
  
  Well done sweetie pie - it is this sort of behavior that persuaded me you are wrong.
  reply report
2. 54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Children will do the same thing, that is believe everything that pops into their imaginations to be real, then they grow up.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  really?
  That is not a substantial claim, Q.
  Exactly how do they 'grow up' apart from the body maturing to a certain height, weight or their brain filled with information by other brains. The notion is flawed.
  
  children have, imo, such a better understanding of things than most of the adult world. Theirs is one of simplicity, unity, joy, rest and pure imagination v. the robotic intellect of their adult counterparts -who, ironically, stress to their children to be free of such limitations and 'just enjoy life'.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No they don't, that's why they go to school and learn things.
  
  Of course, that's not to say I haven't met some 10-12 year old kids that could dance intellectual circles around most believers here.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  school? education? induced programming? assimilation? social division and classification? slavery? hmmm.
  
  precisely how are these beneficial to humanity.
  After five thousand + years of 'education' humans still are as dull as rocks. The notion is still flawed. sorry.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, many like yourself never actually bothered to get an education, that's why they are "dull as rocks"
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  wow, a shift from conversation to personal attack?
  how fitting. If one can support their stance, attack the other.
  sounds quite religious to me, Q. It is becoming evident now why you and so many others spend so much time in the religious forums.
  
  BTW, there was a man some years ago -extremely intelligent, according to other humans- who was able to divide a perfect atomic unit. Upon re-unification, this atomic unit explodes. That item is called a hydrogen bomb. That item now keeps 90% of ALL humanity in the grip of fear. He was a scientist/atheist/intellectual.
  
  religion is still fear/slavery no matter what label you slap on it.
  so is all religion irrational?
  in the words of Mrs. Palin, you Betcha!
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Fair enough, I'll reword my response.
  
  No, many never actually bothered to get an education, that's why they are "dull as rocks"
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  even still, the most noted learned person has relatively 'no clue', which they admit on occasion, behind closed doors. But education is just another guise of slavery. Millions of people w/ MBA, PhD, etc are considered in a different 'social' class. Everyone else seemingly beneath them or unequal. The lack there of, posts blue collar joe, drinkin` beer and watchin` porn. Again, social division.
  
  ultimately it is still slavery. Especially since a person between the ages of 0-17 has NO CHOICE in what they are taught. And if they do not learn, according to that doctrines rules, are not permitted to advance into 'other' social elements/classifications/grades, etc.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, your argument is the fact that people don't have all the answers.
  
  It would make sense that those who are too lazy to get an education would use that as an excuse.
  
  It would appear that you're the one making that distinction. Does it ever stop you from watchin' porn?
  
  Hilarious. What you're saying is that children have no choice to learn about the world around them. lol.
  
  And, then they turn to watchin' porn?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'll bet that they can dance intelectual circles around non believers as well.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  touché Jerami ! lol.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The point Jerami, which you have completely missed, is the fact that those kids can use critical thinking skills, the same thing non-believers use, hence their intellectual dancing is on par with each other.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I ask on a diffrent thread..
  What is your definition of Christianity?
  Does everyone that believes in Jesus fall under one single catigory?
  reply report
85
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
The ability to take those beliefs and trash them simply by making a minute change to brain chemistry is even more amazing!
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no doubt, Earnest, no doubt.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
just for sheep in giggles, Q and any other willing logician, attempt to consider: purity.

what it is.
where it comes from.
how it apply under the present 'methods'.
what are the results.

if the present methods cannot be used, what method should be...
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 13 years ago
If there is/was a God, it's not very logical that the Gods creation would have the awareness to find the Gods flaws. Are we smarter than the God's many believe in?
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
good point.
flaw suggests an absence of total knowledge/understanding.
it is precisely logic that mankind has subjected themselves and others to such considerations.
I thoroughly agree: this thing called: awareness/consciousness is the root of the problem. So the fault is on the creation, not the Creator.

1. It is not necessary to consider a question nor its opponent, answer. point A/B are infinite polarities, relationary parallels of the Need To Know. Both do no thing with respect to the creation, Creator and most certainly, purity.

2. Purity is beyond awareness or consciousness.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. When a baby or innocent child dies from SIDS or some other unknown reason for their death, I consider this a flaw. I think this would fall into the creators fault rather than the creation. I also consider it flaws that we are not perfect. We have the intelligence and awareness to design medicines and surgery to treat our imperfections. It would seem logical that if there was a creator, we wouldn't need doctors or medicines. If we had the choice of how our children were to be born, would we choose healthy and flawless or sick and full of errors telling them it's their fault? I think the suggestion of a creator is also the suggestion that we are smarter than a creator, or we are just an experiment.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When a woman is carrying a child she is made aware that smoking cigarets and or Crack Cocaine, drinking alchol, etc., are harmful to her child. If she does it anyway ??? and that child survives, reaches adulthood and has children, the birth defects of their child is the fault of the creator??? I think NOT.
  After dozens of dozens of generations that people do this to themselves can we place the blame on the creator for having made a defective creation?
  What have mankind been doing to ourselves for thousands of years? And it is still Gods fault cause he gave us the choice to do this to ourselves or not. Not his fault.
  
  I have heard you say that We should accept the responceability for our own actions. That is also true for the human race as a whole.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, if we were perfect, we wouldn't need stimulation from drugs to survive and be happy/content, we would be stimulated like all other animals simply for being alive. How many other animals do you see smoking crack? Not a very smart design. If there was a God, he's not a very intelligent designer when the design can fix his mistakes. If you say there is a God, it would be his fault for giving his creation awareness to be smarter than he is. Afterall, if God created all, God created crack. Does God smoke crack?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  human adaptation doesn't justify the issue.
  
  the 'defects' of man are his own doing.
  there is nothing to suggest any single human being cannot be 100% flawless in body, mind or spirit. Each choice by every and all humans effects every and all other humans -be it ten thousand years ago or 10,000 years to come.
  
  if anyone actually understood the Adamic Principles of Tanakh, the view point would change considerably.
  
  pointing fingers at apes or poppy plants or a Creator is just that, pointing fingers. did the ape ask a man to sex it and give him AIDS? did the poppy plant say take my parts and made for yourself a power to get 'high'. did the liquid say make from me petroleum and burn it in machines so you can ease your legs and pretend to fly? etc etc etc.
  
  human reason/logic has never been more futile than it is today.
  to accept imperfection is to become that imperfection.
  to accept the opposite is to become that opposite.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  lol This same irrational reasoning is the reason some families let their children die, keeping them from medicine in their irrational belief that prayer will heal their child over modern science and medicine.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
What does prayer have to do with health?
Realize the need for 'prayer' is only because the acceptance of the limitation (flaw). Even in 'prayer' humans are attempting to reason their way, as with medical 'pratice' /experimentation. Science -as religion- has destroyed more life than it has presumably 'saved'.

One trying to save humans through 'prayer' one trying to save humans through prescriptions. I see no difference between them. Both mystics, both useless.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think anyone can make the claim that science has destroyed more life than saved with good evidence. Science helps understand what makes us live longer and more efficient. Prayer and medical practice is not the same, medicine is tangible and prayer is not.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Science has destroyed more life than it has saved; unless we use selective memory.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What facts do you use to support this? Religion?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lets not change the subject yet. We were discussing if science has killed more than it has saved.
  The opposit is true. Science has killed 1000's times the number that it has saved.
  Beginning with metalergy; creation of swords, gunbarrels etc. some good things such as plows,eating unincils,tin roofs etc.
  Chemistry and physics created gunpowder, Atomic bombs...
  and tooth paste, make up, and asprin, etc..
  
  Don't get me wrong.. science is a good thing
  Everything is a good thing, when we use our selective focus of attention and choose to see it that way.
  Unfortunately the opposit is also true.
  
  Mankind sees everything the way we want to precieve them.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's not science that has created the weapons, it is greed that created them. If there was no greed for money and power, I think science would go toward saving lives rather than killing them.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  IF..IF.IF.. So you admitt and I agree that greed is the driving factor behind scientific advancement. Or it would be going forward saveing more lives than killing them.
  
  You see ... Greed is everywhere ... Not just in religion as some would have us to believe. Greed must be the origional sin that has infilterated everything and "most" but not everyone,
  Now we have found something that we should all be able to agree upon.
  Can we hold focus on this?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  greed, the original sin? perhaps. the woman was greedy and ate the fruit, then the man did too. Good point Jerami.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
Hmm. That is not entirely true. To say it helps us understand 'what' makes us live longer or more efficient is not sustainable proof of its value.

Perhaps after the experiment is complete, 'evidence' can support some claim of tangibility. The rest is intangible/theory/accepted/disputed. It doesn't completely explain what, how or why we live longer, the body heals itself, etc.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The body does not always heal itself. This is why medicines and machines sometimes keep people alive. Have you heard of an artificial heart? This is science, the tangible. I would like to see prayer replace a tangible heart that keeps someone alive.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
as the body 'ages' its ability to regenerate is what causes it not to heal. This is mostly due in part to one's environment, food intake and mental state and very little to do with science or religion.

science, as religion, exploits those assumed flaws by inventing mechanisms, else all medicine -on every level would be free of charge. As would religious buildings and collection boxes be empty.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why would medicine in life be free of charge when nothing else in life is free? It takes money to fund the research to invent the medicines and technologies. Scientists and doctors didn't spend so much money and time on college to work for free. They worked for what they have, why should someone not have to pay for the results of what they had to pay for? Aging is a great imperfection, medicine and pain killers work wonders for giving people pain free lives due to the bad design.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
Q, i am assuming you define that as a substantial rebuttal? Hmmm.
seems the likes of the 'elite' intellect never seem to transcend nor offer clarity in defining/explaining their position, yet are quick to judge, mock, point fingers, dispute.

What it shows me is this: for all the years spent learning and all the titles attached to one's name fore or aft, are moot.

And yes, I am emphatically stating the obvious: children are forced into this 'education'.
90% of it is useless, because it is biased!

Just because a person can memorize information, be given a series of selected questions, answer those questions correctly (according to the aforementioned) deems this person intelligent and therefore worthy to move up in the ranks of the other brains? A slave society if I ever saw one. At least the theologians offer choice, free will option, the other does not.

And precisely what do they learn about the world around them?

-Everyone is out to get them, especially those religious nuts.
-Unless you're smart, you are not a success.
-At some point someone is going to push the button and we're all dead anyway, so just enjoy it while it lasts.
-Work, make tons of these little pieces of paper called money - a lot of `em. Save them up, so you can buy stuff that will ultimately kill you or the brain cells you have.
-Work even harder and you might, just might, be 'privileged' to join a select group of individuals -who agree they don't know it all- but will try to convince you otherwise, while mocking those they consider to be 'less educated'.

Slavery, division, social reordering, inhumane treatment of others, Aryan ideology perhaps?
reply report
1. 60
  kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For a while I thought I was the only one who can see this...
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, there are plenty who see it that way. That's part of the problem.
  reply report
2. 54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, reality, the world around us is biased that way.
  
  Those who do not apply themselves and use their brains to think would make that assertion and would convince themselves of such.
  
  The lack of effort of those who wish to justify their incompetence and laziness does not preclude their diligence towards conspiracy theories and paranoia.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
Hi Kess. No, many of us do see it.
A close friend has a double phD in history from Berkley told me this would eventually be the ultimate downfall of humans.

I agree.
Knowledge is fleeting.
Which began my work some time back,regarding the "Need To Know Factory" v. Spirit.

{ am working on the novel as I type here: Ad`Iam, the one whom angels served}
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
How can you determine whom is lazy, incompetent, diligent?
As for theories and paranoia, science is loaded with just that,
so is the political arena and practically every other organization.

If this is how you regard other humans, then indeed it proves my point. Simply people regurgitating and pointing fingers.

Defy The Need To Know. Because that IS the problem.
the solution far exceeds even the slightest shred of intelligence, theistic or otherwise.

"Free Your Mind".
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They determine themselves, quite openly and adequately, I might add.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have any friends? People friends?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just like any other Christians?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And would say that these lazy people that you talk about here deserves to eat any more than those hungry children that you are always talking about?
  reply report
2. 73
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  How does one defy the need to know? Isn't that like defying consciousness?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  precisely.
  to defy consciousness implies purity.
  non-need, necessity, duality, parallel of q & a.
  reply report
85
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
Well lets talk rationality in a general way shall we?

An invisible fairy makes everything. Everything.
None of it works, so he makes a bad guy to take the rap for it, claims he is another fairy, but he "fell" in the meantime the first fairy is everywhere, knows everything, controls life on earth and off it and the whole thing is a bun fight.

So then he sends his only non fairy kid to earth and kills him so we can live, even though we were already alive, and then we have to suck up to him through his son who has been dead for 2000 years but isn't.

Sure nothing irrational about that!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

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)

Is Religion Rational or Impulsive?

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

Is Religion Rational or Impulsive?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies