 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 15 Sep 14 - 01:00 PM and if that mind everywhere on earth has demonstrated the need to believe in a meaning-imparting deity or deities to keep it from emotional disorganization and collapse, complaining about it seems to be extraordinarily small-minded. A big If... But no, it's not small minded, on the contrary. It accepts all of the above as one small part of the picture, but it also accepts (as we must) that they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong - and that wrongness is inherent in the nature of religious belief, that the real dangers come from believing it to be true for others. So we fit that into the Human Scheme, our capacity for delusion and idiocy which exists side by side with The Questing Mind which will never come to an end of its questioning, that the next lot of questions haven't even been dreamt of yet. Meanwhile, the myth process continues - from The Kalevala to Rendezvous with Rama - in the hope that no one starts to believe any of it, or, more to the point, judging others for being of a different mythic mind. Atheism and Adeism are still the default states. God is no more driving the universe than Captain Kirk is at the helm of the Starship Enterprise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 15 Sep 14 - 02:31 PM It's this shallow mindset that thinks everybody has considered religion and rejected it. Really gets my goat. To a growing population it is something many have never considered. As said earlier, religion is elective. I would add that it is socially coerced in some quarters too. I suppose if I were superstitious I'd feel less embarrassed about it if I thought everybody had been earlier in their lives and lost their way. Dream on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 15 Sep 14 - 02:51 PM reasons for "non-faith" are as varied as the reasons for the various faiths... and the number of different belief systems (both present and historic) should stand as mute evidence to the lack of unity among believers... so why should it be any different for those of us who do not profess faith in "whatever"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 15 Sep 14 - 06:13 PM I wouldn't say that I deny the *possibility* of deity, it's just not a *reasonable* hypothesis if you actually have an education. I don't have any belief in anything supernatural, and haven't since I was too old for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. Don't remember ever believing in ghosts or ghoulies or things that go Bump! in the night on purpose. But were actual evidence for it (such that you wouldn't need faith to believe) to start appearing, I would adjust that conclusion along with any other critical thinker. However, or furthermore, I also do not see any reason in today's world to pretend that it's reasonable for people to attribute anything we actually do know how it works, to deity. I think people should not be permitted to "protect" their beliefs by avoiding reality. I do not believe that freedom of religion means freedom from education. I think keeping evolution out of science in K-12 education is child abuse and should not be allowed. Any mollycoddling of these ridiculous beliefs is tantamount to betraying humanity, and it IS betraying our intelligence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 14 - 10:24 PM Ummm... Mrrzy... 'amen'... however you wish to take it. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Sep 14 - 01:04 AM Please note that I did not and would not say that all atheists are rigid, intolerant crusaders against belief. Here's what I said: It seems to me, that a good number of people who call themselves atheists, go well beyond simply not having a belief in God - they actively deny that God exists. And, I might add to explain what I mean by actively deny,, these people seem driven to redefine, refute, and ridicule religious belief. Most religious people believe what they believe, because it works for them - not because they feel compelled to prove themselves right and somebody else wrong. Most atheists are the same - they don't believe because believing doesn't work for them, and then they go on with life and do their best to get along with the people they encounter. But there are a few fundamentalists among both theists and atheists, and these people just don't seem to fathom the concept of accepting and respecting people who see things differently. Maybe that's the primary aspect of a fundamentalist mindset - an obsession with proving oneself right and others wrong. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Sep 14 - 01:44 AM Good point, Joe. For some, justifying their existence involves bringing others around to their POV, whether for or against a god. I would hazard a guess, though, that there is a subset that finally feels free to push back after being bullied by the believers for a long time. It is certainly that way with non-smokers who were put upon for many years by smokers, until the wind shifted, so to speak. I haven't read the entire thread, I just dropped in at this point to see who was here and how the topic had evolved. So this is a statement without reference to anything before about five posts back. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:23 AM I still can't see how you can be a fundamentalist on a subject that is other peoples's hobby. You can complain about how superstition shouldn't be allowed to influence society, but that doesn't make you a fundamentalist. From most Christian cults treating gay people and all women as second class citizens to beheadings in the false name of an excuse some religious men refer to as God, it ain't rational people who are fundamental. Trust me. I'd personally like the shops to be open all day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:54 AM ""I would hazard a guess, though, that there is a subset that finally feels free to push back after being bullied by the believers for a long time."" I suspect this may be so, especially for some, with a big dash of bittnerness, for one reason or another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:26 AM go well beyond simply not having a belief in God - they actively deny that God exists. Well, eh, yeah. That's the nature Atheism. It goes even further than that - they'll also tell you why God doesn't exist by pointing out the evolution of such thinking from basic mythological animistic impulses (in which God emerged as a metaphor of Nature) to hardline religious orthodoxy (in which nature was belittled as a metaphor of God). They'll also point out that Religion was killed off by Philosophy, and Philosophy by Science; that Human Spirituality exists in our relationship with eternal infinity of the quantum cosmos which is far richer than anything we've dreamt of hitherto and all the more so for being utterly Godless. On the latest Sky at Night (BBC's monthly half-hour astronomy slot) it was suggested that humanity has only been truly intelligent for the last 100 years or so. A sobering thought! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 16 Sep 14 - 08:40 AM > far richer than anything we've dreamt of hitherto and all the more so for being utterly Godless. Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the observer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 16 Sep 14 - 08:50 AM You don't deny God exists any more than you deny the washing machine is connected to a sock sucker, cos be buggered if I can ever pair them up afterwards... There is nothing to deny. Not sharing a delusion isn't denying it, it's noting old fashioned custom and superstition still exists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:06 AM Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the observer. Not at all, because this is a common objective reality we all share in whether we know it or not. Thus we can sit in our respective regions of planet earth tapping away on our laptops, MacBooks and PCs having this discussion. It's not a matter of opinion that these things work - they work because of the universal laws of nature. Of course the observer might be of a a deistic cast of mind, believing it all to be the work of a creator, but the onus is on them to say why they think this to be the case when all the available evidence indicates otherwise. I have heard it said that God created the illusion of his non existence, in which he did a very through job. 10/10 in fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:14 AM It's hard for some to accept the concept of a universe indifferent to our suffering. Except . . . we are the universe made conscious, and for the most part are not indifferent to each other's suffering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:53 AM It is the certainty that defines the fundamentalist. An intelligent atheist might say God is unlikely, improbable and unproveable, but not impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:07 AM It all depends, Jack, on what you mean by "far richer." In other words, on the observer. Reality is objective, but we appreciate it in different ways. You believe science makes it richer; others may believe that the continued interest of their ancestors in them makes it richer, or the existence of a glorious afterlife, or the assurance that God thinks they're doing good works. The Greeks thought the Olympians, unpredictable as they were, made it plenty rich. The estimation of "richness" has nothing to do with "what's out there," everything to do with what's in one's own head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:43 AM "An intelligent atheist might say God is unlikely, improbable and unproveable, but not impossible." And that is what many, if not most, of us do say. But saying that it no impossible DOES NOT mean, much imply, that any given alternative scenerio is automatically to be assumed to be correct. And that is what annoys me about fundamentalists and zealots... they make no allowance for alternatives to their own thinking/beliefs. There is no "agree to diasgree" in their way of thinking... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Sep 14 - 11:38 AM BillD, I'll take it as the crusty old southern country doctor in Red Planet kinda translated Ipsi Dixit - they sure said a mouthful! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 16 Sep 14 - 12:29 PM An intelligent atheist might say God is unlikely, improbable and unproveable, but not impossible Intelligent? That's barely literate. All the indicators are that God is impossible other than in terms of highly specialised fiction and absurdist make-believe. He he thus on the same level as the Starship Enterprise and Mr Bean - I derive great joy from both these latter, even the former, but never in the sense of literal truth or anything so conceited as sacred. Not only do we do such concepts a disservice by taking them literally, we do ourselves a disservice by allowing that our mythic dreamings can be in any way true. If we allow for the God of Abraham being real, then we must allow for them all being real. That's quite a pantheon of possibility you have there, which must also include astrology, ETH-UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Trolls, Goblins, and a myriad of subjective supernatural bogeyman humanity has created by way of folklore down the ages. Far better we understand these things for what they are than what they, most evidently, are not . As Carl Sagan says : '"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 16 Sep 14 - 01:22 PM As Carl Sagan says : '"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." And I say be careful what you wish for... When hubby was young and went on long car trips with the family, his spinster aunt would keep him quiet by betting him a million bucks he wouldn't find a pink cow in the many farms they would pass. Sure enough, that came to an end the day he spotted a very sunburned Holstein out in a field. LOL ... He never did get that million bucks. Anyway... I'm not holding my breath waiting for divine revelation, nor am I walking around with lightning rods to protect myself from bolts from above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:05 PM Jack, could you provide a list of "All the indicators are that God is impossible." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:07 PM They say their god is infinite. I know what they mean now. I can't say he doesn't exist any more than my next door neighbour's Aunty's podiatrist can say my super sock sucker isn't attached to the washing machine. If something has credence simply by the fact you can't prove an abstraction is otherwise, we'll be here all night! Prove your god is anything more than an invention of man to control others and I will accept the sock sucker is just an excuse for my domestic inadequacy. In the meantime, laughing at people who are superstitious is not a sign of lack of intelligence, it is enjoying the absurdity of it still being relevant to shallow people. No problem in people having hobbies, it's when hobbies start affecting people not involved in silly games that they deserve scorn and ridicule. I remember saying, just as a turn of phrase, when a work colleague said he accidentally forgot to pay for a newspaper he took at the train station, that I would pray for him. He took me seriously and said, "You don't believe in that fucking rubbish do you?" No, I said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:24 PM ?Jack, could you provide a list of "All the indicators are that God is impossible." FKWT, would you pleas provide a comprehensive list of all the hard evidence that God exists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:25 PM Yes, yes, yes we've been here before - but if God exists, His existence raises more questions that it answers. I'm talking, of course, about 'infinite regress'. If God created the Universe, who, or what, created God - and who or what created the God creator etc., etc., etc.? At this point, pete, and his fundamentalist mates, look all pious and intone that "God is unknowable". But that's just a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card - and I don't trust people who pull 'get-out-of-jail-free' cards. In addition, if they're not prepared to even think about the Big Questions like the possibility of infinite regress and its implications, they certainly shouldn't be tinkering about with questions connected with evolution and other areas of contemporary science which make them uncomfortable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:27 PM You pray... I'll say 'amen'. Those who care will understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 16 Sep 14 - 03:07 PM "Jack, could you provide a list of "All the indicators are that God is impossible." Could you provide a single indicator he is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:00 PM we certainly have been here before, shimrod, though your memory is a little hazy. I said that God was eternal and spirit, though of course, he is in a sense also unknowable in his complete attributes. can there be such a thing as infinite regress ?. the Christian has an answer from the bible. you don't accept that. I do. equal ? well, as I said before you are left with believing that everything came from nothing via no one. that is totally against science and logic. you and your fellow believers elect to believe that. atheism [whatever your dictionary says] must believe in some sort of self creation. that goes against logic and science. is that a faith position...you bet it is ! and then jack says God is impossible, perhaps the most outlandish of his eloquent but unsubstantiated assertions. and the animosity with which most exhibit, it seems, betray evidence of their religious devotion to their no god worldview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:37 PM and then jack says God is impossible I do indeed, because we can trace his invention in the inventions of scripture which are neither infinite nor eternal, but only a few thousand years old, before which time - no God. Other Gods - lots of Gods, any amount of the bloody things, but not the idiot bastard God of the Bible. And I say this without animosity to anything or anyone other than a total disrespect for the whole biblical mythos which reads like a particularly bad episode of Dr Who. God is VERY knowable in terms of fiction, folklore and bad myth. Look outside scripture - look at nature, look at the sun, moon, stars, clouds, galaxies, planets - all the things that move our out hearts to a sense of the numinous. It's right there - Nature, the Cosmos, the whole of the case in all its Godless & godless glory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:58 PM "well, as I said before you are left with believing that everything came from nothing via no one. that is totally against science and logic." It's neither against science nor logic! Your assertion that everything has to have been created by someone is actually an hypothesis based on an analogy i.e. in your very, very, very, very etc. limited experience of 'everything', pete, people create (some) things. That does NOT mean that everything has to have been created by someone! Where's the evidence to support your hypothesis? Oh and by the way - the Bible doesn't count as evidence - it's just an old book containing, mainly unsubstantiated (or poorly substantiated) stories. Oh, and further by the way, I'm not expressing a 'belief' here - I'm merely asking you to produce evidence in support of your belief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM God is not an impossibility. The problem for God and his advocates is that he is, by any stretch of even the wildest imagination, extremely improbable. Nothing in nature is inexplicable. Much in nature remains to be explained, but we are closing in, and the endeavour is wonderful. But as soon as you insert that dismal copout of an "explanation" for everything, in other words God, you are sidelining that wonderful thing that you might have expected the God-squadders to laud above all other human attributes, our intellect. You can't believe in God and also be entirely rational. Not that being entirely rational is always a great thing, as we are not all Mr Spocks, and a good thing too. But to have your life, your behaviour, your relationships and your moral compass all based on an irrational notion is a bad thing. Just think it through. Nothing you see in nature cannot be explained by natural laws, and whatever we have yet to understand will one day be explained once we understand those natural laws better than we do. But God is above natural laws. He is supposed to explain all of nature and the laws that govern it, yet be not just above nature but also against nature. All-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, no beginning and no end - all these supposed attributes are counter to nature. But the real clincher is that there is absolutely no evidence for his existence. Not a scrap. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just means that he's about as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle. I'm an atheist and I don't know whether God exists or not. But I'm not what you might call fifty-fifty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:26 PM oh, and of course, creation is an indicator that he is, greg ! bill, a lot of the above has bearing on your post too. "...they don't begin with a claim..." I have read lots of atheist claims here. and of course the underlying assumption is that we all and everything came from nothing. I suppose I could do the atheist tactic and say, you cant prove a negative, so maybe it could make itself. only trouble is, it would not be entirely honest, as I believe it accords with science and logic to say there must be a creator. it may "bother" you that I describe atheism as a religious belief, but I am not intending to leave atheists comfortable in their unbelief, it seems to bother you, even as a "skeptic", but I guess we can agree that we speak from our own perpestive "..God as an eyewitness." I was not trying to convince you of that, merely expressing what my preconceptions are. I am fully aware that I could never provide enough evidence to convince you of the bibles trustworthiness....let alone the crusading atheists. having said that, your dismissal of my explanation for the [minor] mistakes, fails to take account of the much greater agreement of most of the mss with each other. despite gregs claim that gen 1v1 does not read the same in the Wycliffe, there are, I am sure ,no biblical ms that say anything other than God creating, and in 6 night/day cycles. that is further attested to in ref to the Sabbath commandment [exodus20 v 11], so it is clear that deep time is not taught in scripture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM It's is not only religeous folks who have all the odd beliefs/notions. Scientists can also come up with a lot of weird stuff (theiries and notions) -some of it "loosely hitched" to quantum theory science (aka quantum physics). scientific notions/theories linked quatum science |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:55 PM I see jack has proved the point , that he is actively against [he would say the idea of] God, and prefers to stifle discussion by aggressive badmouthing. "...nothing in nature is inexplicable. much remains to be explained... " says steve. now that seems like, either a contradiction, or a faith position....and a very big one. "..but we are closing in..." another faith statement. shimrod, as I keep saying, I admit to my presuppositions, but causality and the impossibility of an infinite regression, imo, makes a logical case for an eternal, supernatural creator. so, where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator ?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:15 PM " ... but causality and the impossibility of an infinite regression, imo, makes a logical case for an eternal, supernatural creator." No they don't! Define "eternal". Define "supernatural". " ... where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator ?" I have not expressed a belief and neither have I formulated an hypothesis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:20 PM oh, and of course, creation is an indicator that he is, greg ! What the fuck is that supposed to mean, pete??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:53 PM and prefers to stifle discussion by aggressive badmouthing. I'm only bad-mouthing a fictitious God based on the crap in the bible in which he comes across as an idiot misbegotten bastard. As Richard Dawkins famously put it in The God Delusion: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Amen to that! Though I doubt the God of the New Testament is any better. Dawkins again: "It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself." * so, where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator ? The evidence is EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING (excluding religious fiction, natch). God is in NONE OF IT. It is not belief, it is not hypothesis, it is simple commonplace beautiful joyful all inclusive objective natural REALITY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:40 PM I'm not "against" God. I could say that I'm just waiting for him to turn up. No luck so far. Nor is it a "faith position" to accept that, whilst science has explained a lot, much is still left to be explained. It is not a "faith position" to predict that much that is yet to be explained will be explained by scientific endeavour. After all, that is exactly how everything we understand about the world so far has been explained, and by no other means. The trouble with you and your ignorant ilk, pete, is that you wish to superimpose upon us an "explanation" for the mysteries of the universe that is infinitely more inexplicable than those mysteries themselves. He is infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-seeing. No law of nature can apply to this fellow, yet we are supposed to accept that he is the explanation for everything that has either been resolved already or is still being closed in on by good science (which you know nothing about, and, sadly but entertainingly, which you appear to be proud of your pig-ignorance of). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:43 PM "Impose" would have sufficed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:53 PM Infinite regression is less opposed to reason than the existence of an all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, all-benevolent, all-present deity, because infinite regression is just one phenomenon (regression) extended infinitely into the past. The deity, on the other hand, has many infinite attributes, not just one - and infinite regression in the form of eternal existence in the past is one of them. Furthermore, infinite regression, if true, does not conflict in any way with what we see around us every day of our lives. Zoroastrians believe in two gods - one good, one evil - who are constantly at war in the world. That at least is more consistent with everyday experience. It is very difficult to believe that the sort of unitary deity described above could approve of things like Ebola, rabies, and the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, none of which can logically be chalked up to the human misuse of free will. Unless, of course, Original Sin is invoked to explain and justify them. But the only evidence of Original Sin is the assertion of it in the bible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:09 PM Deity didn't "approve" of ebola, rabies etc, they made them happen, I thought, if you went that way. The above "where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator" shows a lack of understanding of the concept of a hypothesis. You posit the null then seek evidence of its *contrary* - there is no such thing as evidence *for* a null hypothesis. It is the position that a creator is needed that calls for evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:33 AM
Posted By: Bill D 16-Sep-14 - 02:27 PM Thread Name: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
You pray... I'll say 'amen'. I think there's a song (click) in there.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:04 AM ""where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator" shows a lack of understanding of the concept of a hypothesis. You posit the null then seek evidence of its *contrary* - there is no such thing as evidence *for* a null hypothesis." Very well expressed, if I may say so, Mrrzy? So you see, pete, the onus is on you to produce evidence for a creator. You might also like to brush up on what the word "logic" means. It certainly does not mean "something that I can believe in" - as you seem to think it does! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:14 AM What's all this about atheist claims pete? There's no such thing. You re the one with the unrealistic proposition. Justify your claim rather than saying that dismissing your claim is a claim in itself. Which it isn't. Steve, you are being too realistic, logical and accurate. I've told you about this before. No use, it goes over too many heads. You can't tell a mason not to roll up his trouser leg... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:52 AM Greg and Stu, I never claimed, and do not claim there is "hard evidence that God exists" or that there are any "indicators" that he does. Jack did state, " All the indicators are that God is impossible" It is reasonable to ask what those indicators are. Do you know what they are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:56 AM It is reasonable to ask what those indicators are. Essentially it comes down to two things : 1) Understanding the mythological / folkloric origins of the very concept of God and 2) Understanding the utter redundancy of the concept in the light of ongoing scientific discovery. Also, it's about the incompatibility of the concept within the sheer diversity of 'supernatural' options on offer - the old 'They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong' equation. I remember an old very non-PC cartoon featuring a psychiatric ward full of delusional messiahs. The caption, spoken from one orderly to another, was : "They can't ALL be Jesus." As ever, objectivism is the key. The human predeliction for mythological invention and storytelling is NOT evidence of God, Gods, UFOs, Ghosts, Fairies, Monsters, Angels, Demons, Men in Black etc. rather evidence of our equal capacity for a) inventiveness and b) delusion. Basically, we invented God in our ignorance and science has shown us the error of our ways as it reveals to us the origins of the universe, our solar system, our planet, the evolution of life and, ultimately, ourselves. Then comes our culture, our myths, our dreams, our religions, our wild imaginings born from the very depths of awe, wonder & terror from the dawn of human consciousness that gave rise to cognition and language. And there we were, unique in all of nature; the very cosmos contemplating itself and asking itself : 'What the fuck???' and coming up with a myriad of different certainties all of which claim monopoly on the truth. 50,000 years or so down the line, Science asks the same question, though it doesn't make shit up to fill in the blanks, much less does it put ourselves at the centre of it all. As it said on The Sky at the Night recently, humanity has only been truly intelligent for 100 years - the nature of that intelligence is a) peer reviewed and b) ever-evolving. Who knows where we'll be in another hundred? Fear not ye faithful Godly believers! Chances are we'll fuck it up and be plunged back into an apocalyptic pagan / Abrahamic nightmare of rancid tribalism in which our Gods and Demons will rule supreme once more. Sounds like a fair few of you are already there, cozying in for the long dark night of the human soul when Planet Earth will be cold and silent once more... Still, at least the wildlife might get a chance to recover. Every cloud, as they say... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 17 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM steve, whatever science has discovered, you cannot know that it will explain what it has'nt as yet. you just believe that based on your a priori assumption that there are only naturalistic explanations to be found. lighter, that is a clever argument , but just because the simplest explanation involves belief in a deity encompassing multiple attributes, does not mean that infinite regression is more viable. do you think that stacks up in observational science, better than , everything [that has a beginning] must have a sufficient cause ? yes, as a biblical Christian, I do believe original sin is the reason and outcome of all that is evil and disastrous. why should zorastrianism be considered a better explanation. mrrzy, whether or not I misuse word- hypothesis- does not alter the fact that , if you think about it at all, you must believe in self creation, or steady state of some description . you posit nothing to start with [I presume ] ,I posit God. despite claims that there is no evidence for him, it is at least logical that if there is a deity/creator , creation follows. if there was absolutely nothing, where is the logic in anything from that [ except that "that" implies something when actually there is [ .... ] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:48 AM Jack, neither of those two indicators make God "impossible." If there was any "indicator" that made God impossible, there would be fewer intelligent people who believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:35 AM I don't think intelligence and belief are incompatible; just as I don't think believers are fools. I know a lot of very clever believers - and a lot of very idiotic atheists. Like music, it's all a matter of taste. This has nothing to with the nature of the God Myth, or the nature of belief, or yet of religion which serves to engender and exploit that belief in a myriad of ways all of which are utterly inconsistent with one another. I spend a lot of time immersed in religious folklore, maybe too much (pity my long-suffering wife last week on the Three Hare Trail in darkest Devon!) but it's something of a passion of mine. The humanity of these things is paramount, just as an awareness of the inhumanity inherent therein is worth bearing in mind, but such is life. There is one common reality we all share in; we are all born from it, and we we will all die back into it. Matter can't be created or destroyed, like it says in the Egyptian Book of the Dead : Existence is for all eternity. We are starstuff. As human beings we tell stories, and some of them catch on, for whatever reason. This doesn't make them true. Science is ongoing and revelatory, it is engendered by enlightenment that is (slowly but surely) replacing a need for the supernatural with something far greater than anything we have ever conceived of hitherto. Furthermore, it is real, it is everything, it is everywhere and it is common to us all. Unlike God, who is just a character in a book of noxious fairy tales told to children to get them to behave. Thus do I maintain, God is impossible simply because he is nowhere else other than in human fiction and, just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are NO indicators whatsoever of him being a possibility. Least of all belief, no matter how intelligent the believer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:45 AM That reminds me. I clean forgot. I am a signed up member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I signed up in order to put it on a form I had to fill in when doing some public sector advisory work. We pastafarians tend to forget our faith from time to time. A bit like anybody of any other faith when it suits them... pete says sin is the reason there is so much evil. Considering Christians consider themselves sinners, stop sinning then! Never mind. Let he who is stoned cast the first sin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: MGM·Lion Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM You can probably tell me then, Ian, some things I have long wondered:— Is that True Deity worshipped ketchupped or plain?; Bolognese or carbonara?; with or without Holy Parmesan? I think these most vital theological and liturgical points, which I require settled before I could even think of becoming a worshipper. ≈M≈
-Joe Offer- |
