Author Topic: Why I care about religion  (Read 8412 times)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Why I care about religion
« Reply #210 on: October 10, 2006, 04:15:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Holden,

You still misunderstand, and if you want to belive that I or someone else believes there is not god, so be it.  Someone else might belive it.  I'm not going to speak for them.

I don't believe there is no god.  I simply have never seen any proof that there is.  This is not a matter of belief.  To rank atheism as per number of dieties believed in is a mischaracterization that a lot of people operate under.
 


I do understand... completely.

My argument is semantic. My view is that one who doesn't believe in God is an agnostic, one who believes in the nonexistance of God is atheist.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Why I care about religion
« Reply #211 on: October 10, 2006, 08:53:12 AM »
hmm... I can't tell you what god is.. it is a pathway not a destination if that is how you want to define it.   I will find out.  

 I believe that the universe was created by a god and that he instilled rights in me.   I say that all this is simply faith based and I can never prove it to anyone.   I have no interest to do so.   I have gotten strength from my god that I did not posses at the times I needed it the most.   Others may use science... drugs.. therapy... etc.  

It is quite simple...  most people on the planet and all peoples from the beggining of time believe(ed) in a god.   the athiest believes there is no god.  He has no proof but he has faith that he is correct.

This makes it a religion in the strictest sense.  

Hell... there may be some form of thor or whatever.   how would I know?  I am not close minded enough to shut out the possibility...  

Many who are athiests believe in ghosts and bigfoot and alien visitors and all manner of stuff... I am not saying they are wrong... I am agnostic on those things.

Being an athiest is making a statement of faith...  a scientific person or a person who really lacked faith in god but was honest and had no agenda would call himself an agnostic.  The athiest is close minded and agendized and faith based.

I have lived long enough to know that even the simplest of scientific theories that were embraced by "most" of the scientific community have been proven total bunk in the past and it is still happening.

I certainly am not going to listen to a scientist on the existence of god.   They can't even get the food groups right.

lazs

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Why I care about religion
« Reply #212 on: October 10, 2006, 09:17:06 AM »
Lazs, by your logic a christian is also "dishonest" because they aren't agnostic.  Is this an accurate summary?  You said "The athiest is close minded and agendized and faith based", do you apply this to christians too?
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
Why I care about religion
« Reply #213 on: October 10, 2006, 09:20:45 AM »
Quote


I certainly am not going to listen to a scientist on the existence of god.   They can't even get the food groups right.

lazs [/B]


and witches float.
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

storch

  • Guest
Why I care about religion
« Reply #214 on: October 10, 2006, 10:21:19 AM »
burn her

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Why I care about religion
« Reply #215 on: October 10, 2006, 10:51:09 AM »
Just wondering aloud. How many truly devout followers of christianity do we have on the boards? You know, not so much the "I'm not a serial killer" therefore, I am going to heaven, but how many actually follow the letter of the Lord, at the expense of their own wellness.

Seems to me, that we (and I count myself in this category) tend to follow the rules when they don't inconvenience us. Would any of you go out of your way to aid a homeless guy getting beaten to a pulp and risk the mobs turning on you, or bring some starving person into your home if they knocked on your door for a meal? Would you have cast the first stone on Mary Magdalen?

I'm fairly certain that jesus was an antagonist against highly organized religion, and systems that allowed the priveliged class to overlook social ills.

Seems to me, that many people who profess the virtues of religion, only profess those virtues that best service them at any given time.

Offline Hawco

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
Why I care about religion
« Reply #216 on: October 10, 2006, 11:42:52 AM »
I think Descartes sums up Religion best :

 “The constitution of the true Religion whose ordinances are of God alone.” God to Descartes is, “a substance that is infinite [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which everything else, if anything else does exist, [must] have been created.”

Descartes presents to us an argument for God’s existence, in Meditations, which is the ontological argument. This argument starts with “the idea of God” as “the idea of a supremely perfect Being.” But “a supremely perfect Being,” by definition, “possesses every sort of perfection,: including that of existence, “since existence is one of these.” If one was to separate existence from the idea of God, by definition that person is no longer thinking of God. “For it is not within my power to think of God without existence.” “And this necessity suffices to make me conclude (after having recognized that existence is a perfection) that these first and sovereign Being really exists.” “And so I very clearly recognize that the certainty recognize that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends alone on the knowledge of the true God, insomuch that, before I knew Him, I could not have a perfect knowledge of any other thing.”

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Why I care about religion
« Reply #217 on: October 10, 2006, 02:13:59 PM »
chair... "christians" are not dishonest by my logic so far as their religion goes...  They freely admit that they have only their faith as proof.

The athiest is dishonest because  he will not admit that his belief if purely faith based.

lazs

Offline indy007

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
Why I care about religion
« Reply #218 on: October 10, 2006, 02:34:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
chair... "christians" are not dishonest by my logic so far as their religion goes...  They freely admit that they have only their faith as proof.

The athiest is dishonest because  he will not admit that his belief if purely faith based.

lazs


I think your understanding may be a bit off then.

There's 2 kinds of truth.

Absolute truth. Accepting something on faith that it is correct, and will always be correct.

Provisional truth. Accepting something as correct, until it can be disproved.

Religion relies on absolute truth. Science relies on provisional truth.

That is, and will always be, the fundamental difference between religion and science. In religion, questioning beliefs is considered heresy. In science, questioning and disproving beliefs is ... well... what you're suppose to do.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2006, 02:36:53 PM by indy007 »

Offline 68Hawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1365
      • 68th Lightning Lancers
Why I care about religion
« Reply #219 on: October 10, 2006, 03:16:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
chair... "christians" are not dishonest by my logic so far as their religion goes...  They freely admit that they have only their faith as proof.

The athiest is dishonest because  he will not admit that his belief if purely faith based.

lazs


Lazs,

You should re-read the posts of myself and others and examine the content more carefully.  Again I will say, faith is completely different from reason.  Not to hold one higher than the other, but they are different things.

Personally I do not believe in god because I have seen no evidence, and I have seen evidence that disproves the existing theories of god or gods.  I am not relying on faith in someone that told me there was no god, or some abstract belief that there could be no god, I am relying on empirical observation that, in my mind, the world just doesn't work that way.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but it does annoy/offend me alittle when people think they need to ascribe these things to faith or belief.  It's like you're trying to defend something, and that by acknowleging what I and others are saying about their own personal world views it will diminish your own justification for your world view.  I would have more 'faith' in your argument if you left things like 'purely faith based' out of your statements, as this is missing our points entirely.  

Agnostic-
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
[url]http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic[/ulr]

This means undecided.  Atheism would imply a decided rejection of the concepts of dieties or religious belief systems.  This does not necessarily mean that they believe that on faith, though some may.
68th Lightning Lancers
Fear the reaper no more fear the Lancers!
http://www.68thlightninglancers.net

Offline 68Hawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1365
      • 68th Lightning Lancers
Why I care about religion
« Reply #220 on: October 10, 2006, 03:36:46 PM »
An alternate perspective:

It seems to me that it is entirely plausible that humanity's creation of the concept of dieties, stemming all the way back through our history for sure, could collectively be a metaphore for alien beings who initially seeded life on this planet as something of a horticultural experiment.  It would easily explain sightings of gods, people's conversations with gods and the common theistic strain running through almost every major religion (beings greater and more powerful then ourselves, seemingly all knowing).  That these beings check in from time to time would only seem logical, within this framework of thinking.  That UFO sightings have supposedly increased since the invention of nuclear weapons would possibly indicate increased interest in our backwater planet, contingent upon their notice of our technological advancement.  Popular fiction such as Star Trek, Predator and many other genres have touched on concepts like this.

Do I believe this?  NO.  Though I find it more plausible than the explanations that all other human religions have forwarded to this day.  Do I know this?  NO.  Because I have seen no proof of any of this.  I have not seen any disproof either, but that does not mean that we can accept it as fact.  

It's just a funny thought really.  Though it would explain UFO sightings, and weird reports of UFOs hovering over nuclear missile silos, all the switches coming on all of a sudden, the techs freaking out, and then the launch cancelling itself as suddenly as it began.  Like there's not interstellar teenagers out there with daddys saucer that have a perverted sense of humor?  

My personal view is that human kind invented the concept of religion to explain things around them that they could not explain otherwise, like lightning, as well as to give themselves some higher purpose to believe in.  The advancement of science has shown us that many of these explanations were just wrong, and that many more plausible explanations lay around us.  Science also tells us that we do not fully know all the explanations, and possibly never will, because life itself is truly bigger than any of us.  I'm fine with accepting that we don't know certain things, or that new data in the future will lead us to better explanations than we have now.  That has nothing to do with faith, not in a god or in a lack thereof, and not in science.

Again, believe what you want to, but please don't try to tell me what I belive, or on what basis I make these conclusions.
68th Lightning Lancers
Fear the reaper no more fear the Lancers!
http://www.68thlightninglancers.net

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Why I care about religion
« Reply #221 on: October 10, 2006, 03:53:09 PM »
Hello indy,

Quote
Originally posted by indy007
I think your understanding may be a bit off then.

There's 2 kinds of truth.

Absolute truth. Accepting something on faith that it is correct, and will always be correct.

Provisional truth. Accepting something as correct, until it can be disproved.

Religion relies on absolute truth. Science relies on provisional truth.

That is, and will always be, the fundamental difference between religion and science. In religion, questioning beliefs is considered heresy. In science, questioning and disproving beliefs is ... well... what you're suppose to do.


I realize I am coming into the thread late in the day, and I apologize for that,  but actually a number of scientists and philosophers have pointed out that neo-Darwinianism is actually more of a faith than a science, especially now that biochemical evidence has shown that Natural Selection cannot explain the creation of cellular structures or even something as fundamental as a protein. However, since the ruling religion of our age is scientific naturalism, and Darwinian evolution is the necessary creation myth for that particular religion, the evidence has to conform to the theory and not vice versa.

As Phillip Johnson wrote in his essay The Beginning of Reason:

Quote

In all the world there is no greater dogmatist than "everybody knows." Dogmatism is a human characteristic that grows out of insecurity. It is particularly pronoinced in the case of individuals or groups that hold power positions what are threatened by criticism. Religious priesthoods have sometimes tried to protect their power by forbidding the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages or by taking the know-nothing attitude toward scientific observations that threatened traditional ways of viewing the world. In our own day the ruling priesthood consistst of authoratative bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, the academic and legal elites, and the managers of the national media.

The new priesthood, like the old ones, has a vested interest in safeguarding its cultural authority by making it as difficult as possible for critics to be heard. The modern equivalent of excommunication is marginalization, which is much more humane than physical punishment but just as effective in protecting the ruling philosophy. Those who try to challenge naturalism are confined not in a prison cell but in a stereotype, and the terms in which the media and the textbooks report any controversy are defined in a manner designed to prevent dangerous ideas from getting serious consideration. Whatever the critics of naturalism say is mere ‘religious belief,’ in opposition to ‘scientific knowledge’; hence it is, by definition, fantasy as opposed to solid fact.


Heresy these days within the scientific community consists of questioning the presuppositions of Scientific naturalism and while one cannot be burned at the stake, ones career certainly can. I have personally spoken with two Biochemists who will not publish what they believe based on their own research simply because they are rightly fearful that it would be the end of their careers.

Just last year, for instance, publishing a peer reviewed article written by a PhD that questioned the ability of Darwinian Evolution to explain the sudden proliferation of animal life in the Cambrian Explosion cost one Evolutionary biologist, Richard Sternburg, his career at that particular institution:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Everyone has faith commitments, they are in fact essential to reasoning, its just that some deny their existence in order to assert a claim to intellectual superiority.

So we all scrape and bow and say "Life was spontaneously generated from non-life" and "Chemicals can create information" and "From Nothing Everything Comes" lest we be thought stupid and unreasonable and become marginalized.
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
Why I care about religion
« Reply #222 on: October 10, 2006, 04:28:12 PM »
no wonder why the bible is so damn long.

sheesh.

:cool:
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27070
Why I care about religion
« Reply #223 on: October 10, 2006, 04:37:16 PM »
I believe in God..... but I have a question that I have not been able to resolve.

If we all stem from Adam and Eve, does that mean we are all inbred?

I can't even play a banjo :huh
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline 68Hawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1365
      • 68th Lightning Lancers
Why I care about religion
« Reply #224 on: October 10, 2006, 04:48:41 PM »
Seagoon,

Funny how the article you linked does not actually comment on the merits of that guys scientific argument.  It does quote one other scientist as saying it was rubbish, or something like that, and mostly focuses on a supposed witch hunt against him.  Whether or not that happened, if his scientific conclusions were supported by scientific fact and analysis I do believe (trusting in the scientific community) that other biologists would have been able to comment directly on its scientific merits and shortcomings.

Funny also that his main champion is a Bush political appointee.

Genetics and other scientific disciplines besides biology have shown that Darwin's tested theories on the evolution of species are correct.  

King Phil Comes Over For Good Soup:  Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

There is certainly orthodoxy in science, but it is a problem.  Orthodoxy itself is not a scapegoat for shoddy science, or for good-faith scientific research that does not hold merit.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2006, 04:51:02 PM by 68Hawk »
68th Lightning Lancers
Fear the reaper no more fear the Lancers!
http://www.68thlightninglancers.net