[rockofullr]

Fine, but I just don't see how that's not the least likely possible scenario to a reasonable person.

If you feel the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe is that much more plausible try this. Read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" (not that I have read it but I have examined some of the major points) and tell me that some of that sh!t is not wacky.

By the way Albert Einstein had a strong belief in god (not capitalized on purpose).

To quote "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. . . . That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human beings toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

 

[Silver]

Silver you are correct, I think that comparision I made had all sorts of holes in it.........how many years ago was that?

5 maybe? I have a good memory

 

[Silver]

By the way Albert Einstein had a strong belief in god (not capitalized on purpose).

So does Sarah Palin. I'd say those two cancel each other out...

(Einstein, it should be noted, believed in nothing that a Christian in the United States would call God. He certainly wouldn't be called a Christian. In my opinion, if you're buying Spinoza's pantheism, you're an atheist but you just can't bring yourself to say it.)

 

[drkenan]

I'm not religious (side effect of years of catholic school) but I wish there were more thoughtful intelligent people out there defending religion. The debate isn't even fun with most people.

Those people exist for sure but most of them would prefer not to force their beliefs on you (like the Bible supposedly tells us to). I too grew up in a religious family and was questioning the ridiculous social hierarchy of the church at a very young age.

 

[Andyman_1970]

(like the Bible supposedly tells us to)

Not.............

 

[norbar]

You guys are to serious business about religion. I think this tread needs more music refences. Jesus was a fan, why won't you?

 

[drkenan]

Let's keep this thread on topic...I just saw a homemade bumper sticker that said "Evolution: it's like Star Wars. It only makes sense if you don't think too hard."

 

[rockofullr]

Hey we turned this bumper sticker thread into the religion debate thread fair and square now back off! That bumper sticker is mildly amusing though.

So does Sarah Palin. I'd say those two cancel each other out...

(Einstein, it should be noted, believed in nothing that a Christian in the United States would call God. He certainly wouldn't be called a Christian. In my opinion, if you're buying Spinoza's pantheism, you're an atheist but you just can't bring yourself to say it.)

I was merely refuting the idea that being a rational, scientific mind excludes believing in god. I was not trying to give substance to a point of view by stating what Einstein thought. Also, just because you don't believe in a western human like god who has feelings and talks to you does not make you an atheist (though many Christians might take your side on this one).

 

[norbar]

Hey we turned this bumper sticker thread into the religion debate thread fair and square now back off! That bumper sticker is mildly amusing though.



I was merely refuting the idea that being a rational, scientific mind excludes believing in god. I was not trying to give substance to a point of view by stating what Einstein thought. Also, just because you don't believe in a western human like god who has feelings and talks to you does not make you an atheist (though many Christians might take your side on this one).

I remember someone posting a trust pool in america about how many people would trust a given group representative to be the us president. Black was in the 90%(i know it's high but at pools people tend to hide their prejudice), same for woman. Mormon was 78% while atheist was 49%. Being atheist apparently makes you an evil person right away.

 

[Silver]

I was merely refuting the idea that being a rational, scientific mind excludes believing in god. I was not trying to give substance to a point of view by stating what Einstein thought. Also, just because you don't believe in a western human like god who has feelings and talks to you does not make you an atheist (though many Christians might take your side on this one).

You should have mentioned what Einstein though, instead of trying to weasel out by not capitalizing the "g".

Because it matters...claiming Einstein as religious while pretending that you don't know what naturalistic pantheism is makes you seem a little disingenuous. Unless you were actually unaware of it, of course...

 

[rockofullr]

where did I say Einstein was religious?

 

[Silver]

where did I say Einstein was religious?

I will grant that believing in Spinzoa's concept of God doesn't make you religious at all...which is kind of my point.

 

[rockofullr]

I will grant that believing in Spinzoa's concept of God doesn't make you religious at all...which is kind of my point.

what you said was

In my opinion, if you're buying Spinoza's pantheism, you're an atheist but you just can't bring yourself to say it.

unfortunately atheism has an ambiguous meaning.

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.


What I am trying to defend (purely for the pleasure of debate, not to defend my persoanl views) is that the concept of faith in a god is not utterly ridiculous, as some people would like to make it seem.

P.S. Man it's slow at work today!

 

[trailrider1]

 

[Silver]

What I am trying to defend (purely for the pleasure of debate, not to defend my persoanl views) is that the concept of faith in a god is not utterly ridiculous, as some people would like to make it seem.

Then you used the wrong person as an example, since Einstein's "god" is defined as nature itself. It's a word substitution, not a belief in a deity.

(I wasn't contradicting myself either. I think that Spinoza's pantheism is basically atheism without having to say it. At the very least, I would argue that is makes you non-religious.)

 

[rockofullr]

Don't think I'm agreeing with you. You apparently believe in a vision of hell which was developed as much by pre-christian pagan beliefs and a guy called Dante as the bible. If you read the bible the description of "hell" is very ambiguous.

Plus you probably think I will end up there.

 

[rockofullr]

Now we are arguing semantics.

But it's still kinda fun.

Spinoza described nature and god as one but he still called it god. This leads me to conclude that if he were asked if this "thing" was a deity he would say yes.

Sidenote: interestingly enough Spinoza espoused that all human action was predetermined but in realizing this we have free will.

 

[Silver]

Isn't a deity by definition supernatural?

If you define God as nature, then God is natural by definition.

(Semantics is meaning...I hate it when people say, "Oh we're just arguing semantics!" Yeah, that's why we are arguing.)

 

[rockofullr]

I'm sorry for using a silly phrase.

I was expressing that arguing about the meaning of the word god as used by Einstein and Spinoza is not as amusing as actually debating the validity of faith in god or religion.

To continue on the topics of semantics "nature" itself is the crazy inexplicable thing we as humans are trying and failing to understand. Spinoza's philosophy takes away the division of supernatural and natural. He seems to claim the natural and supernatural are one rather than saying there is no supernatural.

Does this make nature supernatural or the supernatural natural? I don't know but if we talk about it for too long we are gonna get into a philosophical circle jerk.

Any way, time to go home and ride my bike! Debate you b!tches tomorrow!

 

[trailrider1]

Don't think I'm agreeing with you. You apparently believe in a vision of hell which was developed as much by pre-christian pagan beliefs and a guy called Dante as the bible. If you read the bible the description of "hell" is very ambiguous.

Plus you probably think I will end up there.

i belive there is a hell. not saying everyone is going to wind up there, i just sorta said that out of anger. but yes, i do think theres a hell.

 

[drkenan]

 

[JohnE]

So where did all that come from? Just some massive interstellar accident? From where did the puddle of primordial ooze and the thunderclap come from?

Hey, did I miss something or did one of you genius types explain all this stuff for my ignant brain? I needs an answer...

 

[kidwoo]

I was merely refuting the idea that being a rational, scientific mind excludes believing in god.

Kind of depends. Just because you rule differential equations and high order physics doesn't mean you possess the self actualized ability to know when you're offering up or accepting emotional band aids for unanswerable questions and comfort for your own fear of dying. I know there's a really good probability that my airplane will land at its destination but I still shlt my pants every time I get on a plane. (previous analogy points) If I could convince myself that a huge care bear were hovering below the plane I was on the whole time, it sure would be nice.

You know what I mean? Religion is immune to scientific methodology because it's an emotional need that created it, pretty much the exact opposite of a scientific one.

And in a way I and a few others think this ability to recognize when it's your emotions and really base level curiosities and fears that are the genesis (ha!) for all the things that most religions are, is in a way, a scientific evaluation of yo own bad self. Some people lack this. So yeah I'm one of the people who think there is some base level incompatibility. Put 'em up.

 

[jonKranked]

Well, the dinosaurs did live side by side with man. I wonder if the 12 apostles were raptors as well, or if they were other kinds of dinosaurs.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Don't think I'm agreeing with you. You apparently believe in a vision of hell which was developed as much by pre-christian pagan beliefs and a guy called Dante as the bible. If you read the bible the description of "hell" is very ambiguous.

Plus you probably think I will end up there.

I doubt you'll end up "there" (although I'm not certain there is a "there").

 

[CRoss]

 

[RUFUS]

we have a winner!!!! Ding ding ding

 

[rockofullr]

Put 'em up.

Well then sir, Fisticuffs it is!

Kind of depends. Just because you rule differential equations and high order physics doesn't mean you possess the self actualized ability to know when you're offering up or accepting emotional band aids for unanswerable questions and comfort for your own fear of dying.

I agree that many people derive belief in religion from fear of not knowing the answer but I propose that this is not always the case and is a serious generalization. In my experience a person can believe in religion because of there personal experience and observation.

I know there's a really good probability that my airplane will land at its destination but I still shlt my pants every time I get on a plane. (previous analogy points) If I could convince myself that a huge care bear were hovering below the plane I was on the whole time, it sure would be nice.

The airplane analogy sucked in the first place so there is no point in defending it. A more interesting way to consider the subject would be to ask yourself the following. How do you theorize the universe was created? What is your evidence and reasoning? I doubt your worldview is as rational and thought out as you propose (unless you are secretly a philosophy major with minors in astrophysics and quantum mechanics/string theory). So why point a finger at religious people and call them ridiculous/irrational. BTW I never said all religious people are rational just that being a rational person and having a belief in god is possible.

You know what I mean? Religion is immune to scientific methodology because it's an emotional need that created it, pretty much the exact opposite of a scientific one.

Nothing is "immune" to scientific consideration. Unfortunately you are correct, the scientific method as we learned it in high school can't be applied to many of the topics which religion addresses any more than we can use the scientific method to prove or disprove the concept of wormholes. If the quest for answers is itself inherently derived from our emotions than even science is just one more religion stemming from this emotional need.

And in a way I and a few others think this ability to recognize when it's your emotions and really base level curiosities and fears that are the genesis (ha!) for all the things that most religions are, is in a way, a scientific evaluation of yo own bad self. Some people lack this. So yeah I'm one of the people who think there is some base level incompatibility.

Incompatibility between rational thinking and religion? No.

Incompatibility between rational thinking and blind faith in religion just because someone tells you it's true? Yes

 

[jonKranked]

hey rocko, you ever read up on quantum theory, string theory, n-dimensional theory, parallel universes? heavy sh*t right there man.

 

[kidwoo]

I agree that many people derive belief in religion from fear of not knowing the answer but I propose that this is not always the case and is a serious generalization. In my experience a person can believe in religion because of there personal experience and observation.

So what empirical evidence do you often see as reason to believe the earth was created by a fatherly figure and that he spoke to moses and moses alone? Through a burning bush no less. I reckon he was trying to smoke some datura.

Just examples. Pick anything really. Proof of a soul or afterlife based on reasoned, logical examination?

They're the easy emotional answer to difficult questions. Too easy and simplistic to be true really. That's my stance and I'm stickin to it.

 

[rockofullr]

hey rocko, you ever read up on quantum theory, string theory, n-dimensional theory, parallel universes? heavy sh*t right there man.

What little I have read is a serious mind F**K! I sure as hell cant claim to be any sort of expert though. BTW to clarify the username is rock of ullr with no spaces.

So what empirical evidence do you often see as reason to believe the earth was created by a fatherly figure and that he spoke to moses and moses alone? Through a burning bush no less. I reckon he was trying to smoke some datura.

Just examples. Pick anything really. Proof of a soul or afterlife based on reasoned, logical examination?

They're the easy emotional answer to difficult questions. Too easy and simplistic to be true really. That's my stance and I'm stickin to it.

I never claimed to have proof of any of these things nor do I think that a christian view of god is the most logical. The problem is that you can not disprove it anymore than a religious person can prove it.

Also, I have yet to come up with a logical explanation for the scientific theories which jonKranked mentions above. It all looks like a bunch of mathematical masturbation to me. People don't laugh at peolple and call them irrational for beleiving in string theory though (at least in my experience, maybe at MIT this happens).

In my opinion claiming you can't be rational and be religions, and or believe in god, is just as much of a useless cop out argument as when religious people go "your gonna burn in hell" or other crap.

 

[Silver]

Religion specifically places itself outside of scientific consideration.

This wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact that it also goes on to make scientific claims...

 

[jonKranked]

What little I have read is a serious mind F**K! I sure as hell cant claim to be any sort of expert though. BTW to clarify the username is rock of ullr with no spaces.

Listen here Rocko, I know full well what your username is.

If you wanna read a good book that puts a lot of that stuff into more reasonable terms, check out Hawking's book Brief History of Time.

 

[kidwoo]

I never claimed to have proof of any of these things nor do I think that a christian view of god is the most logical. The problem is that you can not disprove it anymore than a religious person can prove it.

But you did say this:

In my experience a person can believe in religion because of there personal experience and observation.

I just wanted you to clarify what some of those observations might be. I fall off my bike and go boom so I have evidence of the observations of gravity and momentum. What are the counterparts to religion?

 

[rockofullr]

I just wanted you to clarify what some of those observations might be. I fall off my bike and go boom so I have evidence of the observations of gravity and momentum. What are the counterparts to religion?

I never said that I personally made any observations which lead me to be religious. In fact I am not religious (as stated earlier). Maybe some of the religious monkeys can give there personal experience.

Also, don't pick something obvious as your example. Gravity is easy to prove. Try to use your logic on something more difficult.

How do you explain the existence of life on earth? What observations do you have to back this up?

To answer your question I would assume a religious person would cite observations such as the complexity of living organisms. Or the vast, arguably infinite nature of the universe. Or the inexplicable nature of human thought and emotion. Maybe the fact that the chaos of subatomic particles can form seemingly organized structures.

None of these observations prove the existence of god but I understand how a reasonable person comes to the conclusion that all this could not happen by accident. Therefore some unseen force must have created these things.

 

[kidwoo]

Also, don't pick something obvious as your example. Gravity is easy to prove. Try to use your logic on something more difficult..

Sorry dad. I should have known that using a simple common analogy would insult you

How's this:

Common chromatographic separation columns employ two important techniques in the separation and identification of several compounds of interest, wheter they be volatile organics, inorganic salts or any of several miscible compounds with known soluability in several carrier fluids. Using capillary (sometimes pneumatic) systems, these compounds can be separated over the time of transport due to polarity and ionic charge in relation to various polar or magnetic coatings, chosen by the analyst. Using chromatographic and/or EMR excitation, these compounds exibit very characteristic frequencies in relation to the original excitation frequency. By observing both the location and the nature of these frequencies, information on bond structure (both type and frequency of occurence), atomic spacial relations within a compound, and any unique ionization properties can be realized. Through this practice I can verify the presence (and through secondary analysis the amount) of both piss and vinegar progression in your posts. Unfortunately no current techniques exist for the quantification of the phenonmenon known as "butthurt in a previously very civil conversation".

Maybe the fact that the chaos of subatomic particles can form seemingly organized structures.

They're really not all that chaotic once you begin to understand them a little better. The problem is that most people never get that far.

None of these observations prove the existence of god but I understand how a reasonable person comes to the conclusion that all this could not happen by accident. Therefore some unseen force must have created these things

And this is what I keep fishing for. You have said over and over again that you understand and can respect someone who comes to religion as a result of their observations. I have yet to hear of one these observations with which I can sympathize and follow the 'logical' conclusions that most religions present.

You kind of tried to do that in your last post (finally, and thank you). But to take the step that a conscious being somehow set it all in motion is a little too pedantic for some people. We're raised by parents and community that know more than us. We're used to that model. It's all too obvious that this is what was used to describe everything else we questioned once we grew up. See what I mean?

 

[rockofullr]

Sorry dad.

umm... what? I guess it's ok son

Through this practice I can verify the presence (and through secondary analysis the amount) of both piss and vinegar progression in your posts. Unfortunately no current techniques exist for the quantification of the phenonmenon known as "butthurt in a previously very civil conversation".

I thought we were still being pretty civil. (Personally I just enjoy a good debate) I was protesting your example because it is a previously proven scientific fact. In my opinion a logical person who chooses to be religious looks to religion to explains those things which science falls short on.

They're really not all that chaotic once you begin to understand them a little better. The problem is that most people never get that far.

Really? I know the term quantum dynamics makes things seem ordered but take a look at the string theory or the SUPERSTRING THOERY and prepare for your brain to explode in 11 dimensions.

You kind of tried to do that in your last post (finally, and thank you). But to take the step that a conscious being somehow set it all in motion is a little too pedantic for some people.

I agree, I just don't think we should brand people illogical or irrational because of this conclusion.

Catch you fools Monday!

 

[ohio]

Really? I know the term quantum dynamics makes things seem ordered but take a look at the string theory or the SUPERSTRING THOERY and prepare for your brain to explode in 11 dimensions.

Let's start with the basics: do you understand the difference between chaotic and probabilistic?

 

[Silver]

But you did say this:



I just wanted you to clarify what some of those observations might be. I fall off my bike and go boom so I have evidence of the observations of gravity and momentum. What are the counterparts to religion?

Gays getting AIDS? Divine judgement and all...

(Me: "Oh yeah, explain Ryan White please." Jesusbot: "Original Sin." Me: "**** Off!")

 

[trailrider1]

ok guys, most of you are atheist. i can respect it i guess. but what exactly do you think happens when you die?