posted
Indeed, I probably will not accept whatever reason you offer, but I would like to hear what it is. Why the sudden defensiveness? Whatever I might think of your reasons, you know they're good ones, right? Or... do you?
quote:Further example of your lack of understanding leading to essentially non sequitur responses. I've never said that "OMG! God did this!" is the explanation for anything, and your "God-of-the-Gaps" analysis wouldn't be an on-point response if I had.
That was directed to Kwea. I did not assert that you had said any such thing. I said that 'we do not understand this' in a medical journal does not imply that the scientist invokes God to explain the process.
And, by the way, you have in fact asserted that God is the explanation for the beginning of the Universe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indeed, I probably will not accept whatever reason you offer, but I would like to hear what it is. Why the sudden defensiveness?
This isn't sudden, it's a long-standing policy.
quote:Whatever I might think of your reasons, you know they're good ones, right? Or... do you?
Oh, so very clever you are! I must be defensive and not actually believe what I say I do because I don't want to type what will, at minimum, be a 2-page post and would probably take a book for someone who starts threads to mock my beliefs.
quote:And, by the way, you have in fact asserted that God is the explanation for the beginning of the Universe.
I've done more than that: I've asserted that God is the ultimate explanation for everything that happens in the Universe and beyond, although he has allowed the action of free will of created beings to have permanent effect as well. None of which calls into question the usefulness or validity of science within it's proper sphere of inquiry. Said sphere being that which can be physically observed.
posted
Well, if you won't explain, you won't. I guess I'll just have to be satisfied with the explanation I had, to wit, you have no good reason for accepting Catholicism over any other dogma, except what your parents told you.
quote:Again, I happen to think that light we observe relfects actual events. But there's nothing inherently dishonest about this not being the case.
Yes, there most certainly is. If we cannot trust what your god shows us in starlight, why should we trust what he shows us in Biblical writing?
To return to the last-Tuesday example : Would it be dishonest to create memories of things that did not happen? If not, explain how those 'therapists' who create memories of childhood abuse were doing a bad thing.
quote:I've done more than that: I've asserted that God is the ultimate explanation for everything that happens in the Universe and beyond, although he has allowed the action of free will of created beings to have permanent effect as well. None of which calls into question the usefulness or validity of science within it's proper sphere of inquiry. Said sphere being that which can be physically observed.
In what way is this useful knowledge, though, since it only applies to things that cannot be observed? I would like to draw your attention to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or IPU. The IPU does not interact in any way with the Universe, except for having created it. It is plainly divine, since it is Invisible and Pink at the same time - a magical feat, to say the least. How is the IPU a better explanation for the existence of the Universe than 'The Universe just exists'? How is it a worse one than the Christian God?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, if you won't explain, you won't. I guess I'll just have to be satisfied with the explanation I had, to wit, you have no good reason for accepting Catholicism over any other dogma, except what your parents told you.
See note on "arrogant" and "insufferable" above.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, why are you even on a site where the vast majority (I believe) are, in your terms, insane, brainwashed, or both? If you like poking things with sticks, I'm sure you can find better places to do it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM is parrotting arguments straight out of alt.atheism.
"The IPU, God of the Gaps, I only believe in one less god than you," etc.
One would think he was a member of the EAC.
But he's leaving one argument out.
When a theist comes to a.a. and begins proselytizing, the usual response is that since a.a. is a forum for atheists, proselytizing is not welcome. This is then the justification for subjecting said theist to a stream of insults against their belief.
This isn't a.a.
There's a big difference between discussing religion and proselytizing. KoM is doing the latter. And while differences of belief are tolerated here for the sake of discussion, I don't think proselytizing is any more acceptable here than it is on a.a.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he's proselytizing he's remarkably weak at it.
In the same way that a smug "your going to burn, sinner!" doesn't usually get a good response or donation out of non-believers.
KoM, my bitter tone in my post on pp2 comes from a long-standing irritation at people who try to parse out humanity into a small number of neat little pigeonholes--it is almost invariably wrong. Sometimes it's funny as a joke, but 6.5 billion people cannot be crammed into 5 categories as you have tried to do on this thread.
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM is parrotting arguments straight out of alt.atheism.
Do you think they are refuted because you can point to a source? If they're bad arguments, say so, and why. That one's opponent is well-read on a subject is not usually considered a weakness.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not my fault if most people aren't very bright.
No, but it is your fault that you are so damn arrogant that you feel you have the right (and ability) to dismiss most of the population as ignorant because they don't subscribe to your sophomoric attempts at sophisticated thought.
You don't have either, in case you haven't noticed.
quote:I am thinking there is a slight difference between "I don't know how function X of the body works" and "OMG! God did this!" See my comment about God-of-the-Gaps to Dagonee.
There you show your ignorance once again....not just in your tone, but in your lack of comprehension.
Science, in all it's forms, is very young. How may times have the scientists had to revise their theories so far? In any branch?
There is a huge amount of complexity in the human body, in many ways as great as anything that happens within a star...and even though we have been observing the human body since before science was even scientific, there are so many things we don't know about it. We can touch it, dissect it, and record many different samples of it....but we still don't know more about it than we do know, plain and simple.
How much more don't we know about the things that are only theoretical in the universe?
quote:That would seem to imply that there is a deeper truth somewhere, telling what actually occurred, but only intended for those capable of understanding it.
Perhaps the fault isn't in the message, but in the arrogant presumptions you hold. Or maybe in your unswerving "faith" in the concrete world.
Wait, that's right...God isn't infallible, only you are.....
quote: That was directed to Kwea. I did not assert that you had said any such thing. I said that 'we do not understand this' in a medical journal does not imply that the scientist invokes God to explain the process.
No, but it does leave room for all sorts of interpretations of the data you so proudly quote, most of which you have discounted.
What it does imply, at least to me, if that science does not rule out a supreme being. You simply don't have enough proof, or knowledge, to determine that one way or another, although you have implied otherwise.
quote: Do you think they are refuted because you can point to a source? If they're bad arguments, say so, and why. That one's opponent is well-read on a subject is not usually considered a weakness.
He did, you just refuse to listen.
Funny....you seem to be attempting to use the fact that he is well read against him here....what, only you can do that?
Plain and simple....everything you have said can and has been refuted to the satisfaction of all concerned...except you.
Good thing I don't particularly care about your thoughts on this at this point.
You are so arrogant that you believe that no one could have possibly come to any conclusion other than the conclusion that you arrived at regarding this subject. You don't care about the fact that you may be wrong, or that you are rude in your approach. You think that you have the right to pronounce insanity and/or ignorance on most of the worlds population, including people far smarter and far more experienced than you are....despite the fact that you have neither the training nor the knowledge to do so IRL. And you do so by parroting arguments straight out of an atheist web site.
posted
KoM is more correct than people want to believe. Everyone possesses some level or aspects of insanity or irrationality. The trick is to recognize them, accept the fact of their existence, and integrate it into one's lifestyle as positively as possible. If one can brainwash themselves into holding an improbable or false, but advantageous belief, that is not a bad thing. And there are some beliefs, even religious beliefs, for example Scientology, that are just stupid. If calling Scientologists stupid is not civil, then civility is overrated.
And he does have the right to pronounce ignorance or insanity on most of the world's population. If for a given value of x I say 2 + x = 3, another person says 2 + x = 4, and a third says 2 + x = 5, anyone not stupid can reasonably claim at least two of us are either ignorant of the value of x or just insane.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there are some beliefs, even religious beliefs, for example Scientology, that are just stupid. If calling Scientologists stupid is not civil, then civility is overrated.
You are, of course, free to demonstrate how and why the belief is "stupid."
posted
"But Scientology is advantageous for its believers."
No, no. It's not. It's advantageous for a slim minority of its believers.
It's a dangerous, ugly, stupid cult, and one of the few religions that I genuinely think we'd be completely better off without. It drips with cynicism and contempt for its own followers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, the problems I have with scientology are:
Its very, very large monetary contribution requirements, often making members dependent on the organization.
Its convincing people that it would be a good idea to, when the church of scientology thinks they should be punished, go into a box without food or water for days (read up on the Sea Org).
Its beliefs that its practices are scientific cures for problems, when there is scientific evidence otherwise and no scientific evidence in favor.
This isn't even getting into the areas where its ideas are silly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, no. It's not. It's advantageous for a slim minority of its believers."
You're right Tom, I should have been more specific. My knowledge of Scientology comes from tax cases where the IRS accused Scientology members of using the church as a giant tax shelter. I am sure the elite celebrity members of Scientology are treated rather well. It is part of their PR campaign.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Written by a former Scientologist, it is what pulled me back from actually contacting the local chapter (or whatever it's called) when I was toying with the idea after too much late-night TV.
posted
And now what will you do if a Scientologist pops up here and is deathly insulted? If one religion can be deeply stupid (and I admit Scientology is a touch worse than Catholicism) why can't another?
Also, let me point out once again that no-one has been able to put up a simple, convincing explanation for believing one religion over another. Why do you believe <your religion here> over Scientology? Precisely the same amount of evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM -- the way you have behaved in this thread and in the past has severly decreased the chances of people answering such questions from you.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, let me point out once again that no-one has been able to put up a simple, convincing explanation for believing one religion over another. Why do you believe <your religion here> over Scientology? Precisely the same amount of evidence.
You've still failed to provide a simple, convincing explanation for believing <atheism> over <insert other religion here>. Precisely the same amount of evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM is parrotting arguments straight out of alt.atheism.
Do you think they are refuted because you can point to a source? If they're bad arguments, say so, and why. That one's opponent is well-read on a subject is not usually considered a weakness.
I'm not making any attempt to refute them. In fact, I agree with them. I suspect that I learned them from the same place you did, and used them there myself. But that forum was an appropriate place to do so. This isn't.
If you've been on a.a. long enough, you might remember that there used to be an "alt.atheism friends list" in addition to the a.a. number list and the "twit list."
The friends list existed because theists like Peter Kirby, Doug Nelson, Brandon Gorte, and Diana Newman came onto the forum in a genuine attempt to understand and communicate.
The issue is not whether your arguments are right or wrong, it's whether they are appropriate. You're not likely to make any converts here with the attitude you bring to the issue. What you are doing is to breed hostility, which was why the twit list was established.
Having written that last line, I can imagine some people here are probably thinking that I breed hostility as well, and on the same subject. But believe it or not, I try to walk a fine line between arrogance and a genuine attempt to find common ground between two extremely polarized positions. It's hard to do, because merely mentioning that I don't believe in God is often enough to tick people off on its own.
If you look at successful attempts to reconcile different religions, such as ecumenical or interfaith councils, you'll see that they don't work to dispute the details of each other's belief as right or wrong, but instead focus on the points of commonality between different religions. Whether it's Christians and Jews, or theists and atheists, we have more in common than we have to set us apart. We need to look for it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Catholicism over Scientology (or any other religion or denomination) because it fits my observations of the world around em better than anything else. No, I don't think it's perfect (I think any human attempt to understand the divine will be lacking), but I think it's less wrong.
And really, when it gets down to it, that's all you can say to prove athiesm. So we're at an impasse, but you're the one pissing people off by throwing rotten fruit around.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've still failed to provide a simple, convincing explanation for believing <atheism> over <insert other religion here>. Precisely the same amount of evidence.
Atheism is the default position : Had you not been told of a god, would you believe in one? A claim of existence requires evidence; in the absence of such evidence, nonexistence is the logical position to take.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it isn't, not for a lot of people. For you, it probably was, but for most of us we don;t agree.
I wouldn't have believed that taking things that weren't mine was a bad thing if my parents had not taught me that from an early age, and I know a lot of people who obviously have never been taught that violence doesn't solve problems (usually)....just because it was a part of your upbringing doesn't mean it is a bad thing.
Sure, there is a part of it that is related to your family upbringing...but a lot of people convert from one religion to another, or from non-believing to believing, and not all (or even most) of those people fit into the true definition of insane.
You keep on harping on things being "logical", but there are a lot of facts of human existence that don't fit into little boxes, regardless of how much you want them to. The only reason science can claim the world is logical is that they operate on the premise that if they find something that is illogical, they can change their theories to fit the reality.
This "paradigm shift" happens fairly regularly..I can show you a ton of conflicting studies o what is healthy to eat, what isn't, and many different reasons why for both. I can show you a ton of various scientific theories that have been discarded because they didn't fit, because the evidence didn't fit so something took their place.
Why is it that religions aren't allowed to do the same thing? If they do, you claim "Ha! They were wrong, so there is no God!"
You can't touch an emotion, of the feeling a new mother gets when she sees her newborn child the first time. You can't use science to explain any number of things about how the world works, and every time someone goes and claims they know the answer to something, more questions are raised.
I don't think that the gaps in our knowledge are the only spaces where God fits in our lives. I also don't see those gaps closing to form a whole any time son, despite your claims to the contrary.
As we have evolved as a race our concepts of religions have changed....but to say that no religion has any truth or worth is to discount far too much history and knowledge, IMO.
Logic is a wonderful thing, but so is faith. Too much of either is where people begin to have problems. Too much faith in unproven facts can lead to disaster....and too much logic at the cost of belief leads to an empty life devoid of meaning.
From a purely logical standpoint, why would parents ever raise their kids? It is highly illogical, having kids...they limit your freedom, cost tons of money, and are very messy.
Unless there is something to the illogical emotional process that makes it worth while.
I someone here was into Scientology, I would feel sorry for them,but it would be their choice. I am suspicious of any religion that requires money as the major part of their religions instruction, plain and simple. While all religions accept money, and need it to survive in todays world, most don't require specific monetary steps as an actual part of the religious instruction. Also, oddly enough, Scientology claims to be logical...... ....and since they make that claim it is fair to use scientific methods to determine if their procedures meet current standards of psychological methods...and most of them don't, they are psychobabble.
quote:(...) and too much logic at the cost of belief leads to an empty life devoid of meaning.
Well, perhaps life is indeed empty of meaning. I mean, it would be sad if this were the case, but it's also sad that I don't have a million dollars and a harem, and I don't see you complaining about that.
More to the point, why is a belief in god required to have emotions? I can feel just as much for my girlfriend as you do for yours, thank you kindly, without believing in fairy tales.
You are trying to reason from "Some things make me feel good even though they aren't very logical" to "God exists". This-does-not-follow.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn Arnold, where do you think you know me from? I'm really bad with names, but I don't recognise yours at all. And I use King of Men all over the net.
Hobbes, how do you know that wasn't the hand of the devil, trapping you into the wrong religion? I can hear his laughter now.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a supposadly intelligent person, you sure are thick.
I am not tring to do that at all, and nowhere did I say you had to believe in God to love someone.
Also, I have a wife, not a girlfriend...and I wasn't the one posting here at Hatrack about finally getting one, was I? So I doubt you do feel the same for her now that I feel for my wife....although, given time you could. If you did, you would probably be married.....
My point was that science can't, and IMO won't ever, answer everything. That there are things that are illogical that still matter despite being so.
quote:You've still failed to provide a simple, convincing explanation for believing <atheism> over <insert other religion here>. Precisely the same amount of evidence.
If you take the problem of evil to be an evidential problem, there's a whole lot of evidence against theism. You might take all of the bad things that happen to innocent beings as evidence that there is no omnipotent, omniscient all-good being out there.
The stock reply is human free will, but there do seem to be all sorts of natural disasters and such that don't result in any way from human choice.
quote:My point was that science can't, and IMO won't ever, answer everything. That there are things that are illogical that still matter despite being so.
'Illogical' is a strange choice of words here (Stand back, time for philosopher rant) since illogical means self-contradictory. I doubt you want to say that religion is illogical in the strictest sense.
Anyway, I don't share this pessimism about the long-term effectiveness of science. The origin of our universe is a topic ripe for scientific investigation. Theories, albeit very tentative ones, have already been proposed. It may take 100 or 1,000 years, but when such a theory finally becomes confirmed and accepted people will at last realize that yes, science and religion can and must conflict.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you take the problem of evil to be an evidential problem, there's a whole lot of evidence against theism. You might take all of the bad things that happen to innocent beings as evidence that there is no omnipotent, omniscient all-good being out there.
The stock reply is human free will, but there do seem to be all sorts of natural disasters and such that don't result in any way from human choice.
There are numerous volumes on this subject, but the simplest counterpoint is that the "bad things" are bad in a temporal context; we don't know their effect in an eternal context.
quote:Anyway, I don't share this pessimism about the long-term effectiveness of science. The origin of our universe is a topic ripe for scientific investigation. Theories, albeit very tentative ones, have already been proposed. It may take 100 or 1,000 years, but when such a theory finally becomes confirmed and accepted people will at last realize that yes, science and religion can and must conflict.
See, it's good to have faith in something for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
I'd be interested to hear you propose even a hypothetical explanation for the beginning of the Universe that will be both scientifically confirmable and contradict religion.
posted
There are certain ways in which science could contradict religion -- assume a time machine, for instance.
Of course, even then apologetics would be possible -- "its an alternate timeline we're seeing".
However, many of those things many religions say about the origin of the universe couldn't be contradicted insofar as they're taken metaphorically. There's nothing there to be contradicted, really. If a religion says "God created the universe in the same way he makes gravity work" there's no way science can contradict that, because the statement appropriates any science beyond the phenomenon.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science already contradicts the Bible, just ask those fundies who believe in Creationism. And as I mentioned, I think they've got a point. Genesis plainly was intended to be read as literal history. Incidentally, if it is metaphor, what makes it any better than, say, the Navaho Indian account? Why doesn't the One True God (tm) tell the literal truth? You can't very well argue that his audience was too unsophisticated, either : Hindu mythology deals routinely in millions of years.
There are some other ways in which scripture could be contradicted. For example, one might kill every last Christian, leaving no-one to be saved at the Second Coming.
Glenn, I've never been a fan of Usenet, and have never posted on or read alt.atheism. I suppose one fanatical atheist is much like another, though. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are numerous volumes on this subject, but the simplest counterpoint is that the "bad things" are bad in a temporal context; we don't know their effect in an eternal context.
The things I'm talking about are (for example) a forest fire started by lightning which kills off a lot of animals in a very painful way. Such things do happen, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to claim that they serve some eternal purpose.
Note also that I don't need to claim that there's no possible theistic explanation for such evils. I'm not saying they refute theism for certain, just that all the evil in the world is good evidence for atheism. Thus all I need to show is that atheism provides a better explanation for all the evil in the world than theism does.
quote:See, it's good to have faith in something for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
My evidence is induction: some practice (science) has been extremely effective in tackling problems of a certain type (explaining physical matters of fact) in the past. Thus I believe it will meet with further success in the future. Or perhaps you think I have no evidence for the view that a quantum theory of gravity will eventually be successful, or that the quantum measurement problem will one day be solved.
quote:I'd be interested to hear you propose even a hypothetical explanation for the beginning of the Universe that will be both scientifically confirmable and contradict religion.
Good question what "confirmable" means in the context of cosmology, but I'm quite sure that a theory of the universe's creation could be successful in the same way that our current cosmological models are, by providing an explanatory prediction of the astronomical phenomena we observe. An example of a very early stage of such a theory is the work of Alexander Vilenkin on quantum cosmology: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204061
Hawking also did some of the early work on quantum cosmology. I think Max Tegmark at U Penn and David Deutsch have also put some thought into this.
quote:Good question what "confirmable" means in the context of cosmology, but I'm quite sure that a theory of the universe's creation could be successful in the same way that our current cosmological models are, by providing an explanatory prediction of the astronomical phenomena we observe. An example of a very early stage of such a theory is the work of Alexander Vilenkin on quantum cosmology: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204061
Hawking also did some of the early work on quantum cosmology. I think Max Tegmark at U Penn and David Deutsch have also put some thought into this.
The question was how one could be both confirmable and contradict religious beliefs, not merely how one could be confirmable.
quote: You've still failed to provide a simple, convincing explanation for believing <atheism> over <insert other religion here>. Precisely the same amount of evidence.
The standard answer to this is that since atheism is a lack of belief, rather than a positive assertion, that:
1. People don't "believe" in atheism. And..
2. Since religion asserts the existence of God, the burden of proof lies with religion, not with atheism.
But KoM does seem to be asserting the non-existence of God, and attempting to prove it. Which is why I describe him as proselytizing, rather than merely being obnoxious.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
