The religious left?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Ours brains are just biological computers, the fact that we don't fully understand them doesn't mean that there is evil.

You look at something that you cannot understand, that horrifies you and you have to classify it. Understand it to some degree. Calling it evil is a nice clean way of thinking you understand it when you truly don't. It almost can't be helped, its part of the human process of needing to understand. Its the same reason that we created God, to explain our existence. While doing this we also created evil to explain horrifying things beyond our comprehension.

 
Evil could be described as the wont of harming someone else for the joy of harming others.
Some classic evil activites include many evil minded start young by torturing and killing animals.
To reduce sin to this degree, as if it doesnt exist of course absolves everyone, and there for, we need no laws.
To have laws then is but an abstraction of chemical balancing.

Now, we could apply this to anything, as some believe it so, but when a loved one is murdered or harmed, or even better yet, someone you never liked, for some reason we feel loss, and attain attitudes towards the wrongdoer.
This is where we get into faith and fairy tale telling by the chemical believers, since theres no reason other than the very act as somehow being thought of as wrong and not acceptable, which then becomes a moral judgement.
Naw, theyll get around back to the truth, they just havnt looked far enough
 
The Logical Fallacy Fallacy:

If it is not seen in a specific point of view, then it is a logical fallacy.

Ex: Sam says the wind causes tides, I say the rotation of earth causes tides. Therefor, Sam is wrong.

It is seen as an argument were if you cannot prove it, then the ultimatum is the answer. However, when it comes to unpredictable or variable response, there is no room for debate. The debate follows a logarithmic line. The more that is argued, the more that shall be argued. This is the same case with gamblers fallacy...wishing of thinking based on 'sound' human logic.

Basically, I am saying this argument is futile. You cannot prove the existence or lack thereof based on human reasoning. You may say that there is reason why God does not exist, then why cannot there be a reason why that is a reason for the existence of God?

No matter how you approach it, it is a waste. The reason you fight for what you believe is only because you know it is right. not because you want to make a point of to be intellectually/spiritually superior. I will never be able to prove the presence of an all knowing, omnipotent being. I believe there is more to this universe that what we as humans see, more than what science/scientists tell us, and more than some old man beating on a pulpit reading form the Good Book.

There is no way you will move me on that opinion. Faith is not ignorance. Ignorance the the absence of common sense. Richard Dawkins can lecture me all he wants, all his Ad Hominids will not convince me any more than you guys. Have a problem with it, come over to my house and punch me square in the face.

/rant

I believe there is a God, I believe He loves us and cherishes us. He cries over our faults, our pains, and our downfalls; however, He is there to pick you up. I hope I please Him everyday, and if I don't...let Him tell me, not any of you. However, if I hurt you, tell me, let me ask for forgiveness, brush you off, and let us move on...shoulder to shoulder.
 
It was an ideological objective of Staling and Lenin to outright eliminate religion from the USSR. Religion in modern day China is tightly controlled and monitored by the central government.

Ever notice that religions have lasted longer than any nation in world history. Religion follows the laws and morality as taught by their Prophets and God. Nations follow the laws and morality as determined by Man.

Religion will be around long after the laws of Man.
 
And this is part of my point.
The other being, how do the luke warm believers accept the Godless law bringers within their own party?

This isnt about God, tho whats happening today is in the Bible, as we see the similarities today, I just simply pointed out these facts.
As to how the Godless and the believers get along, they elevate their belief, one way or another as equal to Gods word, and is often discredited as often as possible thru revisionist ideals on our founding fathers, and their true intent, as they somehow either want to bring God given rights as government ones.
History is but repeating itself, and if I werent a believer, I wouldnt have this correlation, which is plain to see
 


Religion has lasted longer than any nation but the laws of men have been around longer than the Christian belief system. As science answers the questions religion was originally created to answer religion will have to either change or be rendered obsolete.

JDJ sees this as the end of the world as stated in the bible when non-believers become more prominent. To me this makes perfect sense. Even with the ultimatum of heaven and hell there still might be people who don't want to believe in your religion, how do you solve this problem? By making a clause that states if more and more become "non-believers" the world will end. The prophets would have made good lawyers!

I'm not sure how you thing non-believers elevate their belief to that equal of God when they don't believe in God. It seems that you viewing this from a purely believer perspective.

 
I dont see this as the end of the world, I mean, when youve spent a few more go rounds, Im sure youll be surprised what people think then too.
Like us coming from dust, another koinkydink, just discovered for mans pleasure to boot.
If its getting to the point where if there is no evil there is no love. This to me makes more sense, and that is what brings us all down, whether today,yesterday or tomorrow.

So, this is off topic for this thread, go ahead and convince yourselves, its not like I havnt heard or read about it all before
 
The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion. When a land transgresses, it has many rulers, but with a man of understanding and knowledge, its stability will long continue. Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely. ...

So, like I said, Ive read it before
 



That's why religious people feel higher than those who have no opinion on the question: when you're convinced you hold the truth, there's no need to kill yourself in thinking.

They say they pray a merciful God and they announce at the same time that those who do not believe in Him will not have their place in Heaven ... while arguing with aplomb that His greatest gift is free will.

I will follow their example, buying my son a drum and order him to play in silence.
 
You know, I completely understand your point, but I myself cant get around the facts about me, a sinner, which is death, and only by the grace of God go I.
I already said, I dont believe this way. Knowing God in your heart and actions/day to day life, well, we are all His children, I cant justify those who "know" that those who believe will get a pass, I see many things:
As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” ...
Romans 3:10-18
Theres just one example of where Im coming from, and I also believe some may be surprised in the end, those supposedly not to make it, and those assuredly so, and as to how it goes.

If there is free will, there is good and evil, as well as temptation.
gropouce, you said yourself you know whats right, so you know that theres evil, temptation as well as love, and your choosing to do as you like is your free will, so yes, some "know" God better than God knows God, but not everyone is like that

PS
The gist of my post above was the :When a land transgresses, it has many rulers, but with a man of understanding and knowledge, its stability will long continue.
part, and goes along the lines of countires coming and going, but beliefs staying
 


Please note that I did not specifically state Christian beliefs in my post and not quite sure why the need to single out just one of the many beliefs systems in the world. Of course, the laws of Man have been around longer than Christianity; i.e. Hammurabi's Code. However, to state that the laws of Man pre-dates religion, any religion, would be false. Religious law predates any known civil law and anthropological and archaeological evidence support this.

To state that science will answer all the questions that religion was created to answer completely ignores man's inherent spiritual nature. No matter how modern we become or what great revelations science and technology provide, you can not deny the the base instincts built into the brain stem. The fear of the unknown and the need to quell that fear with some form of belief system will always exist and never become obsolete. Just as there are three sides to a triangle, there are three interdependent parts of human nature; the mind (logic, rational thought), the body (the physical), and the spirit (the inability to perceive the unknown). To discount any one of the three parts as not existing within Man's inherent nature is to live unrealized and unfulfilled. I have yet to read any psychological or philosophical books/articles/papers that deny the mental, physical, and spiritual side of Man's nature.

To answer the question, "I'm not sure how you thing non-believers elevate their belief to that equal of God when they don't believe in God." you must first must agree that Man's inherent nature contains the mind, the body, and the spirit. If the non-believer does not believe in any form of God, they still have an inherent spiritual nature that needs to be satisfied. An atheist can say they don't believe in God but then (just as you stated) say that science and technology will answer those questions. In this instance, the non-believer is fulfilling their spiritual nature but replacing a God with science and technology. In effect, science and technology becomes their "religion". Most atheists will deny that they have any religion and it causes conflict between their rational and spiritual nature. That conflict is due to science and technology effectively fulfilling their inherent spiritual needs and their rational mind not wanting themselves to believe they have a religion. As a result of this conflict, the rational wins out and the non-believers elevate their rational mind to replace their spiritual nature. Hence, the non-believer thinks that the rational mind, and the subsequent belief in science and technology, is equal to or greater than a God.
 
And is why those scientists who scorn religion cling to their beliefs on matter, where it came from, as if it magically appeared.
They have to have faith they will someday answer this, and they then know faith very well, and to step on others faith is very disingenuous , and answers the question of how these two beliefs, those that elevate their belief in science to that of God, and those that just elevate their belief thru faith, they will know like a god, and how the two are similar, and get along so well
 
I just finished reading all of the posts in this thread and somehow feel ethically and morally diminished ... I think it is mainly because nothing anyone said here was remotely funny.

In another 30 or so post Godwins Law will cut in anyway ... I can sense a disturbance in the force.



 



Maybe it would of been more prudent of me to say that the single God religions are younger than the law of man. Religious law itself is a misnomer anyways. The law itself is enforced by man. Not to mention that the Law's were created by men/prophets/disciples or whatever you want to call them. In that manner all religious laws are constructs of man.

Science can easily explain the spiritual side of a human being. All it needs to do is analyze the part of the brain responsible for fear an irrational thought. Its also telling that the prerequisite of fear of the unknown is how you define the spiritual side of man. Everything we perceive is contained within our brains. Every feeling and thought is there. So to think that we can't understand something when its all buried within our skulls seem dishonest.

I'm not sure how you can assert that everyone needs to satisfy some sort of spiritual side. Fear of the unknown resides within everyone even if they are very spiritual. If not, then why doesn't everyone kill themselves and get to the paradise faster? OH wait there was another clause written in some religious texts that says you can't kill yourself. Still there are ways around that and yet we don't see it happening(for the most part). I believe that after I die that my existence is extinguished. How does that enhance my spiritual side? How is my spiritual side satisfied with that idea through science and religion? Your whole argument here is predicated on an assumption anyways. The "spiritual" idea that you speak of is another illusion created by man to understand ourselves.





 
Simple johnson, you want it here on earth, and today/now
You believe if you cant have it you wont get it.

This ties mans ascension to that of God, who has or can do anything.
Gaining the accolades of such achievements is easily seen amongst many scientists today.
They waste time pushing forwards by showing time and again their discovery, instead of pushing forwards.

Anything can be argued here, since everyone has faith.
If it matters where you direct it, and how good in your faith is what really matters, and those who waste time nattering on about others are doing just that, wasting time.
Many religions tell you to be humble, no huge accolades there, no time wasted there.
Many religions say not to judge, no time wasted there.

Difference here is, we all agree, we cant take it with us, and there, the similarity ends
 
So, knowing that there was matter in the cosmic egg doesnt explain why.
They have to have faith that it was there, and have faith theyll be able to explain it as well.

Why was there matter?
What made it happen?

Which would be more important, knowing this or discovering another planet circling a star?
If they assume a because POV, then we go off into the Tyson attack mode, because theyre comfortable not knowing and leave it up to whatever.
They have to have faith it was there, the entire cornerstone starts there, and since Tyson seems more apt to complain about others than diligently seeking this answer, he is no better than the rest?
No, he has faith it was there, cant explain it, not why, and where even, maybe a sorta there moment, but thats all, the rest is faith.
 


You have highlighted a key difference between our two thought processes. I accept that I don't know the answer but you do not. The cosmic egg is a theory JDJ, you have to understand that before you will understand why this talk of how the matter was there is pointless. I've seen some theories that think maybe the universe was created by two realities collapsing into each other. The thing is that explaining these kinds of questions are beyond our comprehension within our current understanding. You have to accept the fact that we do not know the answers and will not know them in our lifetime, if you have to turn to God to deal with this then I do not blame you at all.

Religions KNOWS the answer to life

Science is just trying to figure it out one experiment and theory at a time.


 




Thank you for illustrating my point with such clarity.
 


If youd read my posts, time and again, I refer to those who "know" God more than God Himself.
Those arent scientists Im refering to.
A simple answer as to what we all know, which also has been quoted :who knows the mind of God.
A seemingly perfect believer who had gone thru tribulation very severe gets a nice lil rebuke from God, simply for asking why all this happened to him.
Job was his name, and a perfect example for both side to adhere to.
No matter how tough it gets, no matter how hopeless, you have to keep going on, and instead of Tyson et al giving understanding here, all he needs do is to read Job.
Or the bible for that matter, and not do as they do, but do as God says to do.

Also, again as Ive said, I have no guarantee Im going to Heaven, au contraire I actually said the opposite, and if bad examples are to be had, we can surely visit the thousands of failed theories and raise those up to current scientific standards.
 


To start, I will agree that; everything we perceive is contained within our brains, and I agree that to believe Man is unable to understand something without the proper research and rationalization is intellectually dishonest. With that in mind, I hope you will agree that the study of Law is a subset of Philosophy, that Science and Philosophy are two distinct study disciplines, and that science is unable to answer questions regarding value, morality, and the metaphysical. I also hope that you do not deny that there is an immutable relationship between Science and Philosophy and philosophical discussion heavily influences scientific theory.

So, what about Natural Law? Natural Law is not man made and Man does not govern Natural Law. Cicero, Plato, Aquinas, Hobbes, and others agree that natural law pre-existed man. The writings of Augustine of Hippo, Sir John Fortescue, Sir Edward Coke all show that natural law and divine law are ontologically connected within Man's existence and that all other laws are derived from natural and/or divine law. Sir Edward Coke and others concluded that it was human nature that interpreted the purpose and applies meaning to natural law. And, if Man interprets and gives meaning to natural and divine law, it only confirms that natural and divine law pre-existed Man. So, in that sense, you are correct that religious laws are enforced by man but that in no way means natural and divine law was created by man. If anything, the study of Natural Law concludes that all laws created by man are derived and based on an order given at the time Man's existence began, that the basis for all laws (religious, civil, and legal) pre-existed Man.

Science can not explain the spiritual side of a human being. All science can do is manipulate the chemical nature of Man to show (for example) that an increase in alpha waves results in a feeling of relaxed alertness; science can only measure the end result. That manipulation can and does not explain the origin of the emotion or explain why individuals feel differently as science is unable to explain the value placed on the feeling, the morality that leads one to feel one way or another, or the metaphysical nature of the emotions.

As far as the spiritual nature of Man, all one needs to do is read any psychology or philosophy to realize that the mind, body, and spirit are intertwined into Man's existence. As noted above, there is an immutable relationship between Science and Philosophy and science requires faith. Even the most rational and reasoned of scientists are unable to deny that they require some level of faith, no matter how diminished, in order to form a hypothesis.

So, spirituality is not an illusion created by Man, the scientific/atheist mind is spiritually sated through the creation of hypothesis, denying the spiritual side of Man's being contradicts thousands of years of philosophical reasoning and scientific method, and ignoring your inherent spiritual nature can lead to living an unfulfilled existence.
 
Or, as Ive said before, man has created nothing.
Man has manipulated (pun intended) already existing things into new forms,not that we can prove those forms havnt already existed, or exist today elsewheres.

My understanding is they replace the spiritual with the scientific, and it makes them at awe with themselves we are created from the dust of the ground, as witnessed here:
The atoms of our bodies are traceable to stars that manufactured them in their cores and exploded these enriched ingredients across our galaxy, billions of years ago. For this reason, we are biologically connected to every other living thing in the world. We are chemically connected to all molecules on Earth. And we are atomically connected to all atoms in the universe. We are not figuratively, but literally stardust.
or here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU
The most astounding fact

Yet those crazy believers believe "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
 


 
So, something as simple as finding out most people are right handed is a creation of ours?
And then once finding this out, if we didnt, it wouldnt be so?

Trying to define love scientifically really helps pickin up the womens here 😉
Sure keep the faith brudder, its too hard to explain, but its all there n black n white...almost.
Cutting off the right arm of a righty will surely make them a lefty too 😉

But again, keep having faith that science one day will explain love and emotion

PS
Just trying to keep it from getting too deep, I hate shovels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom