The religious left?

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If we could bottle it, then we wouldnt have global warming

 

[4Ryan6]

@ Reynod

I don't know how many religious threads Ry has closed in the past because Godwin intervened but if you add it to the ones I have closed there was enough vitriol to power a small gas turbine.

I've said what I have to say, so for my involvement, I'm done, no need to close the thread.

 

[God vs Satan]

Amen!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZSchL39m3A

 

[musical marv]

Evil is the hand of God?

Yup. Can't have one without the other.

Couldnt you though?

Dont we generally accept that the G is made of love and he has always existed. Was God not good before there was evil?

If he is all powerful why not get rid of evil? If he doesnt have the ability to then he isnt God.

How do you know there is a GOD? I am getting to doubt this a lot now.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thing about it is marv, weve seen the lamb, and some wont believe til they see the lion
And oh yes, evil will be gone then

 

[Reynod]

Because you're an atheist, do you disagree with the teaching of Jesus?

Fundamentally religion is the opium of the masses ... Mohhomed's opium is just more addictive and has stronger calls to arms.

 

[riser]

Because you're an atheist, do you disagree with the teaching of Jesus?

Fundamentally religion is the opium of the masses ... Mohhomed's opium is just more addictive and has stronger calls to arms.

Or are the people less educated and easier to manipulate?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I think of it this way.
It is said, better that youre on fire but against Me, or even cold and against Me than luke warm, where I will spit you from My mouth.
I think people want a common bond, affection, love etc
A good ol boy relationship with their fellow man, and religion tends to follow/fill this trend.
Atheists have the sense of new discovery to share, even tho it requires faith depending the path taken, whether its evolution, dark matter or what made up the cosmic egg.
Main point is, being luke warm in any of this is not desirable

I mean, there has to be something to tie us all together in the end, one way or another 😉

 

[johnsonma]

Specifically, it has nothing to do with religion, religion is your talking point. I am keeping in context of the progression made through our posts regarding the inherent spiritual nature of Man and to deny your argument that Man creates everything and that Science can explain everything.

Stating that Philosophy and Science are bound by logic is just stating the obvious. Any reasoned thought requires logic to determine the correct from the in-correct. But what's really funny about stating logic applies to both Philosophy and Science is the fact that Logic (the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning) is a subset discipline of Philosophy. Do you know why Logic is a subset discipline of Philosophy instead of Science? It is because logic requires the student to think beyond their own perception and what can be proven and think in the abstract and make supposition, i.e.; have faith. So, as far as my argument is concerned, it only confirms what I previously stated, "that there is an immutable relationship between Science and Philosophy and philosophical discussion heavily influences scientific theory." This relationship between Science and Philosophy is why Science requires some level of faith.

Your definition of faith seems to growing substantially in its purpose. You view conjecture as faith, you view a guess as faith. This is wrong, for making a guess doesn't mean you know it is right. To have faith you have to "know" something is right without having any evidence or fact. I agree that Science and Philosophy are related. You of course view this as faith playing a role in science, but taking an educated guess doesn't require faith, only creativity. You will see why this is in a comments further down.

I found it interesting that you chose not comment on the statement, "that science is unable to answer questions regarding value, morality, and the metaphysical." most likely because it is undeniable and it would cause you to admit that there are things that science can not explain.

My answer lies within the emotional conduct within the brain that I was discussing. Morality is a perceived human interaction that is based on a person by person basis. Good and Evil are creations of man, so is morality and value. Metaphysics is harder to explain. Why is there matter? Why is there a universe at all? These questions are far from being answered by Science but that doesn't mean it won't be able to answer them eventually. Did you think that the ultimate questions of existence would be easy to answer? Oh wait, God did it!(just kidding) Maybe science won't answer everything, or maybe it will. Only time will tell, saying anything contrary to these points is a waste of time. I believe that Science might be able to answer all the questions we can come up with, I also believe that I may be wrong. Faith is a useless concept in the pursuit of science.

I do not need to provide a reason why natural and divine law are combined. The writings of Augustine of Hippo, Sir John Fortescue, and Sir Edward Coke clearly explain why natural and divine are used interchangeably. Also, in this context, the word "divine'" does not automatically mean religion. When "divine" is used as a noun, as it is being used in this context, it refers to the spiritual nature of Man or the universal qualities of Man. Therefore, natural and divine law are interchangeable in that the order of the universe existed before Man, and that order was given to Man at the beginning of Man's existence. What really gets me is that you continue to contradict thousands of years of philosophical thought and dispute the greatest thinkers if humankind under the guise that science can explain everything when it is a fact that science can not.

Thats the difference between you and me. You accept religion and philosophical reasoning without trying to contradict them and come to your own conclusions. I will not just have someone tell me how it is, I will look at their reasoning and temper it with my own. If Divine=Universal then thats fine, its not a point worth focusing on anyways. Again, accepting that science cannot explain anything is arrogant. How could you possibly know the breadth of our collective scientific gain in the coming centuries or maybe even a couple millennia?

To introduce the idea of genetics determining behavior might as well just open the can of worms that is "Nature vs Nurture". The fact is all genetics can do is determine a pre-disposition towards a behavior, multiple studies prove this limitation. Genetics can not explain all of Man's behavior for the same reasons science can not explain value, morality, and metaphysics.

Man's behavior is not in the same realm as metaphysics. We are evolved monkeys and thinking of ourselves as being as complex as the existence of the universe is absurd. Genetics are still not fully understood but I think it plays a large role. However, even with Nature's influences everything is still contained within the brain and therefore within the realm of science.

Making the statement, "natural law as we perceive it would not exist without us" is again stating the obvious. Given that natural law pre-existed Man, it is a foregone conclusion that Man can only interpret and give definition to what Man perceives. And, by concluding that same statement with, "it (Natural Law) is a creation of ours to understand our perception" is to deny the conclusions from thousands of years of philosophical debate and ignore the fact that the universe existed before Man. Just because Man can perceive something does not mean is came into existence as a result of that perception. The only thing created here is the definition Man gives to what has been previously unknown to Man. Lastly, stating that Natural Law is a set of guidelines demonstrates an amoral and relativistic world view, might as well begin debating "Relativism vs Absolutism". But it just seems to be an excuse to dismiss those things which science is unable to explain, i.e.; value, morality, and metaphysics.

Your view of natural law must be different than mine, if you view gravity and the workings of the universe as "Natural Law" then that is something different. If you view the foundations of what we view as right and wrong then that is my view as well.

Using the statement that "thousands of years of philosophical reasoning says so" seems to be your go to in this argument when your own views are insufficient to push the discussion further.

The very words you use to describe how science can explain emotions completely contradicts your argument. You state that emotions are explained by, "chemical reactions through glandular processes", but the key word here is reaction. The fact is the chemical reaction and glandular processes is a result of the emotion and it is not the chemical reaction and glandular processes causing a person to feel that emotion. The chemical responses and glandular processes allows the person to physically manifest their emotion. If you alter the brain, you are only altering or removing the mechanism that created the chemical reactions which allows a person to physically manifest their emotions or express themselves. Given that the physical nature of man is realized as a bio-chemical "machine" you only drastically change the physical nature of that person. Do not mistake altering/removing part of a person brain as destroying their inherent spiritual nature.

I didn't say emotions were explained by the chemical reactions. I said that the brains processes stimuli and then reacts, sometimes the reaction is enhanced by glandular processes. Adrenaline is not pumped into the system because of emotion, it is pumped into the system because the brain interprets danger or excitement and decides the body needs a little extra juice. We perceive this as an emotional response but at the core it is merely the brain functioning as it evolved to. Chemical reactions are not the physical manifestation of something unseen, they are controlled entirely within the brain as the result of the communication between nerve cells in the brain.

Of all your responses, this one is my favorite because it makes me question if you understand the scientific method and what is necessary to formulate a hypothesis. You are correct when you say, "a theory doesn't require faith because it is either right or wrong" because a theory has already been substantiated. It is a hypothesis that needs to be vetted by scientific investigation to determine if it is right or wrong. However, I am going to presume you did not intend to use theory and hypothesis as synonymously. Again presuming you meant hypothesis, and replacing "theory" with "hypothesis" in your statement, then it is incorrect. If the hypothesis was determined to be right or wrong before the scientific investigation was applied, then there would be no need to perform the investigation to begin with. So, it stands to reason that prior to completing the investigation, the hypothesis is held in supposition until proven one way or the other. But the very act of holding a hypothesis in supposition is to think in the abstract and to place belief in the possibility of what can exist outside of known perception, i.e.; have faith and believe that the unknowable could possibly be true. And, for the life of me, if holding a belief that the unknowable could possibly be true isn't the epitome and essence of what it means to have faith, then I do not know what is.

Theories are not beyond reprieve as that is not how the scientific process works. They can be accepted as scientific fact but if new research proves it wrong then it is obviously wrong. It seems that you glazed over my point entirely. A hypothesis and a theory are synonymous in that they both are destined to be either right OR wrong. This is where faith is disolved from the equation. You make an educated guess and turn it into a hypothesis to be tested. It can be right OR wrong. You won't know until you conduct experimentation which one it is. You are only seeing one side of the process.

Also, Albert Einstein was not without faith. He rejected being called an atheist and stated that an ethical culture was most valuable to his religious idealism. Even with all his intelligence, Einstein was wise enough to realize that the human mind was incapable of grasping the complexity of the universe. As a follower of Spinoza, Einstein believed that the soul (the spirit) and body are a single thing. Ironic that you chose Einstein to use an example to back up your "science does not require faith" argument because Einstein was at least wise enough to know that not all answers are contained withing the mind of Man and that the universe is greater than Man. So, to further say that Einstein did not require faith to formulate his hypothesis is a gross misunderstand of Einstein as well as a gross misunderstanding of the relationship between Science and Philosophy.

I'm am very well aware that einstein believed in a certain form of God. By the way he didn't believe in the God that the Bible or that of any other religious text, of course that you must understand by quoting the Spinoza God. The view he believed in I could completely accept as being realistic for someone to believe in. The God that shaped us in his image, conceived adam and eve and all that other stuff has the hand of man all over it and Einstein did not believe it for a second. No where in any of my readings on Einstein did I see where he required faith or God. In fact your reasoning that because he believed that there could possibly be a God(God is not even the right word but I cannot think of a better way to say it), not mind you one that is completely different from all traditional religions as a end all for the argument that he needed faith to come up with his theories is absolutely ludicrous.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

This does not sound like a man of faith to me, not to mention that combining the soul and body into one supports my argument on the matter. That they both die when the body dies because the body creates the perceived soul. I wish i could articulate this point as well as Einstein but alas I had to fall back on quotes from him to present my position on the matter.

Now your just mis-stating my positions. I never stated that the scientific method has anything to do with spirituality, I stated that the scientific method, "require(s) some level of faith, no matter how diminished, in order to form a hypothesis." and that, "science requires faith". If you read faith as spirituality then that is your interpretation. Also, I am not seeking to combine science and philosophy, I am simply pointing out the fact they are immutably bound and that philosophy heavily influences scientific theory. And, I never stated that having faith results in a renewed sense of spirituality, I stated that, "the scientific/atheist mind is spiritually sated through the creation of hypothesis." for the reason spelled out above.

You need faith to believe in spirituality because there is no empirical evidence to support it. Therefore they are connected. If you need faith for science and spirituality then obviously they are connected as well.

The real point however is that you have continually stated that a hypothesis requires faith. Therefore faith results in a hypothesis that you then said results in the person being spiritually sated. Therefore faith results in a renewed sense of spirituality by your reasoning. If you don't agree then you are arguing against the end product of your own reasonings.

I take it that you disdain religion and/or organized religion. That's cool. Many atrocities have been carried out and justified under the banner of God and Religion. So, why you may not be open to religion, religious ideology and morality, I would hope that you do not deny your own spiritual nature under the guise that logic, science, and only that which can be perceived and proven is what makes the whole of Man's existence. Science can not explain why you feel the way you do, it can not explain the value you place on those feelings, it can not explain anything outside the realm of the physical world. And, there is much more to the world and universe that what the feeble human mind can perceive.

I could care less if anyone wanted to believe in a God or Gods. Go right ahead, it doesn't affect me what you believe in. When you use religion as a stop gap or reasoning for anything outside of your personal beliefs is when I take issue. Just because you don't understand the process of the brain and the chemical reactions that result in you placing value on something does not mean it cannot be explained. Of course you cannot explain anything outside the physical world with science, to accept there is something outside of the physical world is to abandon logic, reason and fact.

Imagine what we have learned in the last 1000 years, imagine if we make it another 1000. Do you really think that we won't have a much more commanding grasp on the workings of the universe by then?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I tried telling those that used only the worst case scenarios to describe believers that no one truly knows many things about faith, they see evidence, they keep seeking the truth in their faith.
This is no different than your claims johnson about science, so yes, it is faith.
The problem Ive been trying to get you to understand now not only here, but other threads is, if it isnt faith, then you know, that we agree with.
The assertions you make about the believers is wrong.
Just as in science, if you truly think you know, as in fact, then faith is no longer required, we quit learning for the most part, and move on.
Theres many sleeping scientists as well as believers regarding this, and to say this is exclusive to religion is totally dishonest, and once you add it in, in makes the argument about faith in science, tho it stands on its own as well.

 

[wanamingo]

Im glad Johnson decided to tackle that thesis paper of a response... But the one overarching question that it seems to raise, aside from the philosophical implications of a higher power is, where is the proof?

If all the copies of all the holy books were lost would there be any empirical evidence of God?

Is it like that old episode of star trek where they find God out there floating around as a giant cloud? Is Q God? Can science prove the existence of God or will science be the nail in the coffin for religion?





OMG leave it in the global warming thread that is already open.... so we dont get more polluted.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Its funny, the book that says Israel will be a nation after not existing for 2000 years, and we were created from dust etc is still around.
Now Ive named 2 scientific facts thats been known for 2000 years, name 1 government that has.
To me, its more amazing its still here, and why for some, the dead sea scrolls were so important.
Remember, the church gets scrutinized for "selecting" the books 200 years after the dead sea scrolls were written which were not long ago found.
Now, to me, its no big deal, but it is for some.
I have my faith, and it isnt for sale.

 

[riser]

The argument could go either way. Get rid of the Holy Bible and there is no evidence.. in that scenario. Except the book exists because of the evidence prior to it. Should the book go away, then maybe something happens to bring it back? You must have a better understanding of Jesus and his Apostles. Jesus came here to fix the Church.. the Jewish Church which is now Christianity. Where did the Jewish religion come from? It's been around a very long time in terms of human existance. Actually, probably longer than anything else followed today. That alone should provide some proof to you. But you want scientific data where science hasn't gone yet. If you want scientific answers you won't find them.

One of the surprising things of the Bible, to me, is that at one point they point out a star is actually a cluster of 7 stars in the bible. Oddly enough, no one could prove it back then. It wasn't until the 1990s and the Hubble Telescope that Science was able to verify that single star was actually a cluster of 7 stars.

 

[Reynod]

Because you're an atheist, do you disagree with the teaching of Jesus?

Fundamentally religion is the opium of the masses ... Mohhomed's opium is just more addictive and has stronger calls to arms.

Or are the people less educated and easier to manipulate?

Both !!

Though some of those people living over there in the swamps ...

 

[johnsonma]

I think it's funny you guys think all these stories originate in the old or new testament. All the stories were written down in ancient Sumerian long before Aramaic, Hebrew, or any of the languages the latest iteration has been published in.

Maybe thats why so many of them are wrong.

 

[riser]

It isn't about being right or wrong; it is about the message being presented. Too many people focus on the actual story, not the message that the story is delivering. That is my issue with a lot of preachers and all: they focus too much on the story, forgetting the message.

The Bible is filled with stories that explain a message so people can relate. Instead of people relating, they talk about the story. The story is only there because it explains the message.

 

[johnsonma]

Some of the messages are wrong though, like women shouldn't speak in church. Really? There are valuable lessons in the bible, of that there is no doubt. However, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and it should never be pressed on other people. Abortion and gay marriage being the two issues that pop up the most.

 

[wanamingo]

Dont forget the story about letting the town rape your virgin daughters to let some angels off easy. Which begs the question are Angels anatomically correct? I imagine they are like Ken dolls, what with not being able to procreate or poop and pee (I assume).

Or my personal favorite God mind-f*cking Abraham into killing his son... on a bet.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Some of the messages are wrong though, like women shouldn't speak in church. Really? There are valuable lessons in the bible, of that there is no doubt. However, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and it should never be pressed on other people. Abortion and gay marriage being the two issues that pop up the most.

Again, maybe we should just call you ooc? or out of context.
So, just how was the church set up for women back then?
I wont tell, I guess ooc and wild imagination unless its about Gods word, but even more imagination about believers, totally irrational, unbalanced, and you need your pills now

 

[johnsonma]

You have grown considerably more hostile since I first started posting here JDJ, maybe you are the one that needs your pills? Its easy to say something is out of context without providing any real thought about the correct context.

The correct context is that women were treated like shit back in the day and bible reflects that because it was created by men who believed this.

 

[riser]

Some of the messages are wrong though, like women shouldn't speak in church. Really? There are valuable lessons in the bible, of that there is no doubt. However, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and it should never be pressed on other people. Abortion and gay marriage being the two issues that pop up the most.

See, you're taking your opinions without unstanding what you're talking about. Paul was quoting the Corinthians as saying women could not speak in Church. If you would actually read in Context, you would see Paul calls out to those asking if the word of God only came to them that they would know women could not talk in Church?
If you know the story of Corinthians, then you would realize why women in that city probably were not allowed to talk.

 

[riser]

You have grown considerably more hostile since I first started posting here JDJ, maybe you are the one that needs your pills? Its easy to say something is out of context without providing any real thought about the correct context.

The correct context is that women were treated like shit back in the day and bible reflects that because it was created by men who believed this.

How were they treated poorly? Was is the teachings of the Bible that treated them poorly, or society that lacked the teaching of the Bible that treated them poorly?

 

[wanamingo]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Sh*t almost all of my teachers have been women... I knew Mrs. Huntington was going to hell, how dare she have authority over me!



"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

-This sounds like a good way to get a nights sleep on the couch.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

50 sheckels is about 150$...


Still think that the bible is the infallible word of God? It seems pretty clear that if you think God wrote this book then God is an asshole and thinks women are second class citizens.

 

[johnsonma]

How were they treated poorly? Was is the teachings of the Bible that treated them poorly, or society that lacked the teaching of the Bible that treated them poorly?

It was the way of the world when the bible was created, therefore it was incorporated into the bible. Because the men of the era knew nothing else, and those same men created the bible.