RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:57:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Science only came into existance through Christianity ....tell that to the ghost of Galileo.........

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:12:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 None of you were oppressed by Religion for thousands of years, I doubt any one here is even 80 years old. Religion was absolutly indesspensible in the formation of human Culture, its the root of it. Science only came into existance through Christianity (which waChristianity is the s the result of 10,000 + years of theological evolution) and the Reformation, which are deeply tied together. Dawkins? (or whoever, its a common quote) says "if it wasn't for religon we would be 1500 years ahead", but that is BS. If it were not for religion we would still be grunting in caves throwing feces. We saw enough of the brutality of the Athiest states last century, to even pretend that they are not just as brutal as religions have (at times) been is crazy and not fact based. Brutal atheists last century (or this)? Citations please? Christianity is the pinnacle of 10,000 years of theological evolution? Oh please, grasp another straw, that one won't bear any weight. Actually it did rip off much of the previous millennia for myths and characters (the dying / resurrected god being the most blatant) but scores very low on the originality scale, let alone rationality. Science wasn't birthed by Christianity, it was oppressed by it - which earth history are you reading? Where are you pulling this nonsense from? Remember the inquisition? That wasn't just a source of fashion and fantasy for the benefit of future sadists. Religion was the science of its time, an attempt to explain the ordering of the universe and our place in it. But expecting that it was made for us by a being like us, for a purpose, is pure human conceit. We want to believe it because our egos demand it. But is is no more than a compulsion to socialise the universe, to find a reflection of our own hierarchical obsession. Our tribe has a chief therefore the universe must have a Chief! Right? Superstition may have helped emboldened us to leave our caves but science gave us the tools and means to actually achieve it. Let's not be putting the cart before the horse. We have something better than superstition, let's make proper use of it. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:25:10 PM)
Burtal Officially Athiestic states? USSR, PRC, and North Korea. I din't say it was the pinnacle, I said it was the result, and it was. Alchemy was the Science of the old days not religion. Scince did not exist untill the reformation, where it grew out of the Christian culture, replacing the Alchemy that had existed for thousands of years. It was only in the Christian culture of the reformation that Science came into existance, for mellinia Mankind had not figured it out. Science did not give us the tools to leave the caves, science came some 10,000+ years later. Religion (which I define as a flawed attempt to understand the Divine) was instrumentall in the creation of human Culture. "Religion was the science of its time no alchemy was, an attempt to explain the ordering of the universe and our place in it. But expecting that it was made for us by a being like us, that is a specific religious tenent adn says nothing about the existance of the Divine for a purpose, is pure human conceit. Believeing there is nothign that can exist unless we can measure it is human conciet. We want to believe it because our egos demand it. Look in the mirror But is is no more than a compulsion to socialise the universe, to find a reflection of our own hierarchical obsession. Our tribe has a chief therefore the universe must have a Chief! Right? " Our subculture dislikes leaders and authority, so there must not be a God, right? Still falling back to attacking religion and pretending you have attacked God. I think you have a large amount of Ego invested in your opinion (which certainly is not a belief<grin>), and you are not the only one.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:46:19 PM)
The USSR etc are not brutal because they deny the existence of god but because they supplant the great dictator in the sky with an earthly one. North Korea is not a godless nation, it's just that its god is rather short, stupid and has bad hair. Lucky, your understanding of what science is seems limited to a notion that it is an organised belief system originating from a single source (like religious doctrine). As I have said before, it is a method of using our minds through observation and experimentation. It's been with us for hundreds of thousands of years. Hit rocks together. Sharp bits come off! Hmmmm... sharp bits cut... etc.etc. That's not religion at work, that is the scientific process. (Alchemy, BTW, was only the origin of modern chemistry, not of the modern, formal scientific method, just as astronomy grew out of astrology - superstition may contain knowledge but requires some judicious editing to achieve it.) How can I attack God when there is no such thing? Or did you mean questioned the validity of believing in god? My ego, big though it is, has no bearing on this debate so you can drop the ad hominem attacks, ok. Z.

domiguy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 The existance of science does not disprove God at all. There is no mental difficulty whatsoever in believing that God set up the sceintific rules. That the universe was Intellignetly Designed to evolve and produce life which evolves and gains in conciousness is not hard to grasp. Pretty much all scientists agree that irregular quantum events do occur, and if enough people jump from a building eventually some of them will fly/ or walk through a wall. The wierd thing is that Quantum events are affected by observation, so perhaps prayer/faith might result in a change at the quantum level. Science can not even prove that a particle has mass and moves, yet accepts on faith that they do, they have to move right? The whole system is based on an unprovable fact, that particles have mass and move, thier actions creating our reality. quote: Mzmia MzMia agrees with everything luckydog said! We all gotta serve someone! Whom do you serve? This is where your belief stems? That God set everything in motion and then just walked away? Please tell me that when you both raise your voices in song you aren't singing to the praises of a God that abandoned you back when the first inkling of life was dropped unto this planet. How spiritually rewarding that must be...What comfort you can derive from such a belief in your hour of need. I call bullshit. This is not your belief. I can believe in a God that is non-evasive...That doesn't give a rats-ass to the day to day activities of man or to the final outcome of what was started. CAN YOU? If this is your argument on behalf of the existence of "The Supreme Being" save your breath. Then your bible is as meaningless as you belief. Great argument. By the way, there is not one sane person alive that actually believes that someone, today,will be able to fly, walk through a wall or arise from the dead. I am the second coming, when I die I shall arise.....You should check the odds in Vegas. Would you actually bet that the second coming would arise? It's laughable. Yea of little faith.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 11:29:10 PM)
Archimedes was a Christian? Wow... never knew that.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 11:38:06 PM)
Zensee, Not all religions have had slaughter periods. Most of the officially Athiestic states have, with huge body counts. Both were killing to maintain and extend thier power. Belief in or official denial of the existance of the Divine is not the determinate factor in either case. You can claim Communism was the worship of a dictator, but that is not really the case and you know it. Officially they were Athiestic. It was taught in schools, Religous worship was banned/heavily regulated controlled. Religious people were heavily persecuted, for being religious. And they killed tens of millions (if not more) people in less than a century. Compare that to the Inquisition what was that 1 million total over a few centuries? And only 10,000 in the really dreaded Spanish one? I don't want to condone any such thing, but historically it is easy to see why after liberating thier country from 500 years of occupation, they wanted to get rid of the remaining occupiers religion, and drive out the overseer class, which in that specific case were Jews. To place the belief in a diety as the root of that seems way simplistic. And the religious have been the driving force in many social goods also. Abolition of Slavery for one. As well as helping uncountable people in myriads of ways. But religion can never be more than a distorted reflection of the Divine. I like the term Divine, because it de-anthrophomorphs the concept of God. Religions are institutions of man, and as such reflect thier cultures, and are flawed. All science is deeply flawed also, any honest scientist will admit this, but it is an attempt to learn as much as possible. Scientific thinking is constantly changing, and things that were considered known are found to be completely wrong. Science has in its 500ish years also conformed to the cultures in which it operates. Many scientists asserted (and a few still do) that whites are superior to the darker races. The concept of the races of Man was standard science for hundreds of years. Now we know its bunk. Likewise theological thought has constantly evolved over time, and will continue to. "Lucky, your understanding of what science is seems limited to a notion that it is an organised belief system originating from a single source (like religious doctrine). " The misstating of my position is getting rather boring. It is not using logical reasoning, and is unscientific. Science is an orginzed way of thinking( a conceptual framework), not a specific belief system (though there is an underlying belief that thiers is the proper way to think), misdefining my position only shows yours to be weak. Science is using the Scientific Method. Which was developed at a time and place by a specific culture. "It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]" In the history of science, alchemy refers to both an early form of the investigation of nature and an early philosophical and spiritual discipline, both combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art all as parts of one greater force The making of stone tools was far more akin to Alumbrado's analogy with the cat making up rituals/religion to go along with the food dispeners and proto alchemy, than what you described. They observed spirits in the rock that controlled whether they would get a usefull tool or not. They had no numbers. They had not developed logical reasoning. They had only a protolanguage for describing what they saw. They were not doing Science. They were experimenting and observing from a different framework, there are many, and they are quite dependant on the specifics of a given culture. "As I have said before, it is a method of using our minds through observation and experimentation. It's been with us for hundreds of thousands of years." That is just plain wrong. It (science) is one of many methods of using our minds through observation and experimentation, and it has only been with us for about 500 years. You are leaving the testing and verifying parts of the Scientific Method out of what you are saying. And any scientist would agree with me on that. Science has had and will continue to have a huge beneficial effect on the development of theological thought. Exactly as Intelligent design would have it. Many Religions (institutions of Men) have resisted change for selfish reasons, but that is in no way limited to religious institutions of Men. Institutions of Athiests torture and kill also. Attacking Religion in no way touches on the existance of the Divine. Lets use the Scientific Method on the premise that -Since some Religions have commited horrible atrocities at periods of history, belief in the Divine in any form (the existance of God) is harmfull to humanity/ deluded/ based on an ego need/ false.- If that is true it would also apply to other issues and can be tested. Lets apply the same premise that Socialism is the way people should live. Since the USSR, as well as others, commited horrible attrocities, the belief in the Benificial nature of Socialism in any form is harmfull to humanity/ deluded/ based on an ego need/false- Do you agree with that? I don't. Sorry for the formatting issues.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 11:43:48 PM)
Alambrado. Where did I say that? Archimedes was an Alchemist, probably the greatest of them all. And Alchemy does produce some valid results. So does religous ritual, but neither is science. Later Scientists have learned much from examining the "Why" of Archimedes work.

knees2you -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 11:54:31 PM)
*For me they "try" to Discredit the bible,* *but then they find evidence that* *supports the bibles words. Humm[sm=meh.gif]* *As Always, Ant[sm=idea.gif]*

Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 12:04:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I think it says a lot that some of the anti spiritualists, keep going back to misdefining Christianity and attacking it, and pretend that they have even addressed the issue of if there is a God or not. That says a lot about thier grasp and use of science. Any religion can be shown to be not 100% true. Religion has very little if anything at all to do with God (or the Divine). The existance of science does not disprove God at all. There is no mental difficulty whatsoever in believing that God set up the sceintific rules. That the universe was Intellignetly Designed to evolve and produce life which evolves and gains in conciousness is not hard to grasp. Pretty much all scientists agree that irregular quantum events do occur, and if enough people jump from a building eventually some of them will fly/ or walk through a wall. The wierd thing is that Quantum events are affected by observation, so perhaps prayer/faith might result in a change at the quantum level. Science can not even prove that a particle has mass and moves, yet accepts on faith that they do, they have to move right? The whole system is based on an unprovable fact, that particles have mass and move, thier actions creating our reality. Perhaps Santa Cluas is a spirit/feeling that gets some parents to prepare a magical day for their small children's enjoyment. Then when the kids get older, they help entertain the younger ones, and learn a lesson about life---Things are not allways exactly the way the seem, and it is enjoyable to work to make others happy. Somehow the image of an 6 year old super pissed off and traumatized by learning Santa is his Dad, being a defining moment in his life, makes me chuckle. None of you were oppressed by Religion for thousands of years, I doubt any one here is even 80 years old. Religion was absolutly indesspensible in the formation of human Culture, its the root of it. Science only came into existance through Christianity (which was the result of 10,000 + years of theological evolution) and the Reformation, which are deeply tied together. Dawkins? (or whoever, its a common quote) says "if it wasn't for religon we would be 1500 years ahead", but that is BS. If it were not for religion we would still be grunting in caves throwing feces. We saw enough of the brutality of the Athiest states last century, to even pretend that they are not just as brutal as religions have (at times) been is crazy and not fact based. I nominate this post for best post of 2008. Admiration, ld!

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 12:21:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Science only came into existance through Christianity (which was the result of 10,000 + years of theological evolution) and the Reformation, which are deeply tied together. Dawkins? (or whoever, its a common quote) says "if it wasn't for religon we would be 1500 years ahead", but that is BS. If it were not for religion we would still be grunting in caves throwing feces. You are wrong on every count. The Ancient Greeks created scientific thinking, a long time before Christianity and the Arabs carried on where the Greeks and Romans left off. If it was up to the Christian church, science would have been strangled at birth. As for religion, just read your history. Religion is the grinding anchor of conservatism that has tried to hold back human curiousity at every turn, it has murdered and tortured in the name of god (the truth) to prevent men seeking out the truth. Hell, even nowadays, religion is still trying to turn the tide, look at fundemental Christians in your own country, look at fundemental muslims. When politicians can call on god as their allie or their justification for some policy and they do to this day!!! you know we are still metaphorically living in caves.

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 12:26:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 We saw enough of the brutality of the Athiest states last century, to even pretend that they are not just as brutal as religions have (at times) been is crazy and not fact based. Hitler was a Catholic!!!!!!!!! Anti-semitism in Europe was a Christian phenomenon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It wouldn't have existed without the Christian church and Christian myth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeez, even Stalin was educated in a seminary!!!! Seminary. a special school providing education in theology, religious history, etc., primarily to prepare students for the priesthood, ministry, or rabbinate.

DomKen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 12:36:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joanus There are so many holes in the evolutional theroy. But ok fine here is one hole in evolution. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html Ahh this old site. Rather than boring everyone here to tears refuting all of that site I'll simply point you here which will completely end any doubt a rational open minded person will have on teh subject. You of course won't read or understand it and make some more crackpot lies that you think no one can deal with. BTW this isn't a ref to human eggs being fertilized with chicken sperm or to failed experiments using chimp and pig sperm. Put up or shut up. quote: I would recomend you the Proverb of "It is better to keep you mouth shut and let people think you are and idiot, rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Coming from you that is almost as funny as Domiguy's posts, almost. BTW it isn't a capital P proverb, it isn't found in the bible at all. It is commonly attributed to Mark Twain a quite happy and long lived atheist. quote: If you used the internet like most people do you could look up this info for yourself. You made claims. I happen to know for a fact they're not true so I'll let you make an even bigger fool of yourself by trying to defend your claims. quote: PS I didn't list all of the holes because it would take forever. PPS Church of Atheism founded in Texas (1980-1999 I think) was a crock. If you look it up who will find that the O'Hair woman who founded it was taking the donations (somewhere up in the millions) and putting them in a Swiss Bank acount and was planning to run off along with her Daughter and son-in-law (?) but where murdered before they could skip town. Irony or divine retrobution? Checked quite a few places there are several churches of atheism. None of them were founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. As to the rest none of it is true and no reference could be found to any of it. So as predicted lies and slander but not much else. You'd be really funny if you weren't so pathetic. Grow up and stop telling lies.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 3:49:02 AM)
Yeah, it's getting a little hard following your lines of thought with your format but I am trying. OK - Agreed - humans are bloody and cruel regardless of their beliefs in deity. Theists, however have a longer history of savagery but should have less excuses given their deeper experience and considering that they are serving the divine, not selfish, earthly desires. Communism is an idea, BTW, not a place, and it is largely neutral on the matter of deity. Karl Marx's oft misquoted and misused "Religion is the opiate of the masses" actually takes on a far less sinister aspect when read properly and in context: quote: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." In fact it is arguable that Jesus and the apostles were commies. In Acts we find, 42 - And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship [...] 44 - And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 - And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. But I digress. Archimedes was not an alchemist he was a mathematician and, in any sense of the word I know, he was a scientist, so now we have pushed your estimation of the frontiers of science back a few centuries. (If you have any of those scientists at hand to refute this, please introduce them now.) Your 500 year dating applies to the rebirth (renaissance) of science, not it's origins. That rebirth followed a long darkness overseen by a certain belief system... Your assertion that science extends from Christianity is historically and conceptually incorrect. Certainly a few brave souls within the church strove against ignorance (the Jesuits, for example) but the cardinals opposed them at every step and were it not for other brave souls, the light would still be hidden under a papal bushel-basket. And while religious convictions have inspired many good works, so have secular philosophies. To borrow your own observation "Belief in or official denial of the existance of the Divine is not the determinate factor in either case." With regards our early ancestors, are you saying early humans didn't arrive at their technologies by observation and verification, did not rely on evidence (empirical or otherwise), did not experiment or use abstraction to arrive at new possibilities? Was the bow and arrow presented to us, fully formed, as Venus from the brow of Zeus? The Scientific Method (in the modern formal, sense) is a description of a suite of intellectual practices which is actually a crucial feature of human awareness and which has been with us since the beginning. It has not always been as robust as it is now (Neanderthal technology was virtually unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years) but the method is not constrained to a particular period or location. (The wiki article you linked to is A history of science, not THE history - and it is only rated class-B, meaning a good start but containing serious omissions or sins against objectivity.) luckydog1 said - "Science has had and will continue to have a huge beneficial effect on the development of theological thought. Exactly as Intelligent design would have it." ID? Oh Please. There is no creditable science to support ID. Theology is whistling in the dark and whistling is mostly art, not science. Z.

Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 4:10:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee In fact it is arguable that Jesus and the apostles were commies. Quite, as it was the new religion not of the rulers, but of the poor. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Archimedes was not an alchemist he was a mathematician and, in any sense of the word I know, he was a scientist, so now we have pushed your estimation of the frontiers of science back a few centuries. Archimedes was a supergenius, not a mere thirteen in a dozen scientist. The presence of a supergenius in no way implies the presence of other scientists. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Was the bow and arrow presented to us, fully formed, as Venus from the brow of Zeus? Better brush up on your knowledge of mythology.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 4:29:40 AM)
Personally, I always enjoy these conversations because I always learn something new. One thing I find interesting is the desperation with which people of faith wish to obtain some kind of equivalency between faith and science. Faith is a belief, and science is also a belief they say. But the whole point of faith is the belief in an idea that is maintained without logical proof or material evidence. Science is by definition knowledge gained through experience. The root of the word science is to know! I'll try to put this another way, like a mathematical proof. The claim those of faith want is something like this: Faith = No Faith Belief = No Belief To have faith in something, to believe in something is a positive act - to actively engage in the doing of a thing. To be faithless, or to disbelieve is to not act. There is no doing of anything. I trust in the reality of scientific knowledge because it has practical uses and specifically because it doesn't require any kind of faith or belief on my part. I know the microwave oven will heat up my cup of tea not because I have faith that it will but because I have certain knowledge gained by experience that it will. The fire on my stove top isn't heat from the sacred heart, it is merely burning gas from out of a metal pipe. If I shut off the gas I will choke out that flame, and no faith in the world will bring it back again until I once again turn on the gas and light the pilot. In many ways this conversation breaks down into two camps: that of the ignorantly faithful, and the educated faithless. I am literally shocked at the kinds of misinformation that teems among the faithful. Grab a book for fuck's sake! Real knowledge by increments is the only certain path to the truth, or to the approximation of truth we sometimes call theory. No one needs FAITH that KNOWS better.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 4:31:10 AM)
Oops. Quite right, Rule. It was Athena, not Aphrodite / Venus. Archimedes was special but he was not solitary. He brought great notice and advances to a pre-existing discipline. Z.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 4:33:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Archimedes was a supergenius... Wait, so now you are telling us that Archimedes was actually Wile E. Coyote???!!! [:D] Do you have any knowledge not gained from cartoons?

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 4:37:32 AM)
He was not the coyote himself but clearly the supplier of all of Wile E.'s devious machines, made by none other than... ACME! It all makes sense now. I knew this discussion would bear ripe fruit. Z.

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 4:38:01 AM)
Wait, so now you are telling us that Archimedes was actually Wile E. Coyote???!!! [:D] of course he was (is) did you ever see the two of them together? Prove they are NOT one and the same.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875