The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion [Archive] - Page 2

Tydeus

01-10-2007, 04:44 AM

(this does go somewhere, trust me)

Nietzsche, in his final fit of expression just after his mental breakdown in Turin in 1889, wrote a series of letters, which progressively become a portrait of madness.

In one of them, he declares, "In the end, I would much rather be a Basel professor [He once was a professor at Basel University in Switzerland] than God; but I have not dared push my private egoism so far as to desist for its sake from the creation of the world. You see, one must make sacrifices, however and wherever one lives."

Strange, and humorous, in a sordid way, that Nietzcshe's onset of madness corresponds with a sudden declaration of his own divinity (this pervades all the letters). Ultimately though, consistent with his views, in a way.

A biography of Nietzsche is in many ways a chronicling of loss and lonliness. There were many things at first that tied him to others, beginning of course as child with his family and their faith, but these quickly slipped away. After serving as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian War, Nietzsche lost his health. In Wagner, he had an idol and then friend, and some of his happiest years were when this relationship still existed. Ultimately, though, Nietzsche had to break it, when Wagner's anti-Semitism and jingoism became more than personal views, but political stances as Wagner himself gained influence. Further, Wagner himself had tendency to use Nietzsche to his own benefit, rather than to Nietzcshe's. Thus, an already highly individual, intellectual man was betrayed and shattered, and links to others were gradually cut. He met a woman, Lou Salom�, in whom he found perhaps his only true confidant, with whom he was able to share everything of his philosophy. Ultimately, though, she was far less interested in Nietzsche than he was in her, and they parted ways after a brief friendship.

By this time, Nietzsche had already resigned from his professorship, and lived alone in cramped apartments off of a small pension. His hopeful companion and proteg� departed, his academic work relinquished, his health taken, his friend exposed a traitor, Nietzsche was left with little other than himself.

He proceeded to become exceedingly prolific, although at expense to his health. He would write ten hours a day, despite coughing up blood, debilitating headaches, and intense insomnia, which he attempted to remedy with opiates.

In short, Nietzchse lived quite alone, and spent the vast majority of his time in his own mind. Those few he had looked to as equals, or companions, at least kindred spirits, were gone. As an Overman, who would look down from the highest peaks on humanity, so did Nietzcshe elevate himself, seperate himself, as he was called to do by his intellectual integrity, and his self-sufficiency.

And in the end, what is insanity, but the ultimate solitude, unable to communicate one's mind to any other? And so it is amusing, and fitting, that Nietzsche should have asserted (though admittedly, with some bitterness and irony) his divinity as his sanity was lost, his final possession stolen.

I say this, knowing myself Nietzsche's experiences -- the early ones. I worry that I am surely treading down a similar path to solitude, and all the time it seems reinforced. Anyway, what I have noticed, as I have grown calloused and solitary, is the mountaintop perspective, from which I view most others, that self-elevation that Nietzsche wrote of as characteristic of the Overman, and was characteristic of himself.

In order to climb to such heights, one must abandon ties to the ground, and those who dwell there. And in being above, or superior, one must grow cold and solitary, otherwise being unable to make that climb.

And so would God be the lonliest, most wretched creature to ever exist. No wonder that such a being would toy with us so callously, would present us with mad choices and punish us with eternal suffering -- after all, to God, eternal suffering would be his own experience as an utterly solitary being. So elevated, so superior, as to be unkowable to any other entity. Imagine the staggering lonliness of it, to be unable to share yourself fully with anyone, and to experience that for eternity? Surely, I would lose any compassion and humanity which may yet temper my actions.

And, though to the religious believer, God may dictate objective and absolute purpose, meaning, and morality, what dictates such things to God? Is God's infinite power somehow inextricably bound to purpose? What purpose could God find for himself, in his miserable solitude? God has no trouble following his own laws -- they are his creations, and extensions of himself. He could never fail in upholding them, for he and they are the same, correct?

But why would God find meaning and purpose in simply being what he naturally is? That which he is not required to strive for, even in the slightest? Essentially, the Christian God merely asserts himself as the absolute, the measure of all things. Why would he ever think himself to be that template of perfection? Merely because of his power, or intellect? And how pointless, how meaningless would it be, to provide onself as a template to beings which are utterly incapable of truly living up to that template, let alone understanding he who embodies it.

It would be as though one of us would try to command ants to perform as we do, and to declare ourselves as the objective perfection to all antkind. Would we really have such a reason to do so? Would we find purpose or satisfaction or meaning or morality in it? Or would it be but diversion? Would it still be solitude?

Morality is only ever "objective" or "absolute" when it comes from without, specifically from a higher, superior source. But if God has no equal, let alone superior or higher counterpart, then is he not without objective morality for himself? After all, his template is born of himself, and to him, that could never seem objective.

Loose ends:

I don't see how knowing the future cannot violate the idea of free will. If free will hinges upon choice, and if God knows what choices we will make, and if God is never wrong, then God knows long before we even exist exactly how we will behave, and to behave in any other manner would be to disprove God's knowledge of events. Therefore, we are bound by the correctness of God to act in the way that God expects us to. We merely perceieve the illusion of free will, in such a situation. We might think we have a choice, but God already knows it, and cannot be proved wrong. Therefore, his knowledge cannot be overturned, and our choices are predestined.

If God knows that we will, say, steal a certain purse, when we are on a certain day presented with an opportunity to do so (I say "certain" to be clear that I mean a specific hypothetical, that is, not of being generally predisposed to purse-snatching, but that God knows we will take this specific purse on this specific day, because he has already seen it), how could we ever make the other choice? That would provde God's knowledge to be incomplete.

I suppose the only counter-argument to offer is that God knows our decision only after we make it, in the future, or something? But then we have a God who exists in all times at once, and a non-linear idea of time. And then we, at a given instant, would be coexisting with ourselves at all other instants throughout our life. Of course, this would mean infinite selves, which is awkward certainly, but it would also mean that we are not one single being progressing through time, but rather simply a succession of beings, each one bound to his own instant. And each one remembers the ones that dwell to the "before" of him (much as one would dwell to the north or south) as being part of himself, so the illusion is maintained. Each instant self is perfectly unchanging for all eternity.

If God knows our choices because he exists in all times, we therfore have non-linear time. God is distinctly unique in such a scenario because he is somehow able to transmit information between his instantaneous selves (or somehow exists "outside of time" whatever the hell that means), and remain a whole, unified, progressive being. Meanwhile we are but predestined particle conglomerations playing out to prescripted actions that our non-linear God has already seen and known as inevitable since the beginning of the universe.

I really don't see how free will and a knowable future are compatible.

Further, if God knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree -- betraying God -- before he even made them, why would he make them, if he already knew how such an endeavor would end? Or at least, wouldn't he remove the tree? But of course, then Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten of the tree, and God's knowledge of the event would then correspond to their obedience, which in turn eliminates the need for God to retroactively fix the problem of obedience, because futre God would never have relayed to past God what Adam and Eve were to do, and so past God would have made the tree, as that was apparently the original design. But, then, Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree to future God's knowledge, and he would inform past God, and so we have a paradox.

So, either, we have not free will, or God does not know the future. Otherwise, we presented with the kind of paradoxes of causality that tend to appear sci-fi films. If God does not know the future, he still must answer for providing us with these extremely difficult choices. Why put the tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place? If it had the potential to ruin his creations, could he not have left it out of creation? Or if he were truly dead-set on it, could he not have placed it on some other world in the vast universe?

Similarly, instead of making us choose between believing in God, or going to hell, why would he not simply reveal himself, and make the choice a matter of plain fact, so that none of his "children" have to suffer eternally? Or why not make the consequences of not believing far less severe, since he is, after all, the one who makes it a point of choice in the first place.

Even if our decision on whether or not to believe in God is our own, the fact that we must make such a choice in the first place is God's doing. He could easily remove that choice from among the innumerable burdens that his children must bear, and thus prevent any of them from facing a fate of hellfire, and all this without ever actually infringing on the freedom of our wills.

Nique

01-10-2007, 05:00 AM

I think they don't object to free will so much as they object to the idea of Hell.

But I do find that there's a lot of problems with the idea of a god creating free will, then arranging for two possible fates: do what it says or suffer an eternity of torture.

Krylo mentioned the word 'Gehenna', which many assume to be a much more literal analogy to the condition of the dead than it is. This is just one of the many reasons, both from the bible, and from rational thinking, that makes me not belive in the doctrine of hellfire.

As far as predestination... I don't know. That makes some assumptions about how time actually works, and the nature of God's 'forethought'. Does he see possibilitys, or the actual outcome? Or is he merely so intuitive so as to see with 100% accuracy the future? I don't know, but he obviously doesn't use whatever ability he has to infringe on our induvidual free will, minus actually interacting with us, if ever.

As to the issue of God's control and free will etc... I guess what I'm having a hard time understanding from the agnostic viewpoint, is why God wouldn't subject himself to his own rules? What I mean by that, is that, by and large, it seems like the argument is, 'well, if god is, he should just fix things instantaniously, and just make us worship him'.

I mean, we've got an issue of rebellion, ostensibly (sp?) in Eden... and instead of crushing the opposition, he says 'Ok. I'm giving you a good long amount of time to prove your case - you, as reps of the human family, want life dissconnected from me. I mean, I could just tell you what's going to happen, but 1) in addition to the idea that I have no right to rule, I've also been accused of being a liar, so this gives you some proof that things are better when I'm involved and 2) this establishes a precident for my relationship with humans after I fix things, which, just so you know, I'm totally going to do'.

To me, that just seems fair. As to punishment / reward, well... I mean, I don't know how frightening the idea of unconciousness in death is to a person who has already ruled out any possibility of religion in their lives, but I guess when the bible says that the dead are concious of nothing at all... I just dont know if that's much of a punishment, really. It's really more about love of god and the reward as an incentive than morbid fear, for me, then, becuase I don't belive in hell.

Of course, this is just a dictionary. And not all dictionaries have carried the same meanings. I'm also not sure if I have called it a religion yet, I think I called it a Doctrine

The way you seemed to intend it was to equate it with religious doctrine. That's an apples and oranges situation if ever there was.

My point, Nique, wasn't the motivator. Even if religion was the motivation, the point is that only reason produces results.

Then your comparision is just as flawed as calling atheism a religion. Science and religion are two totally different things except in a very vaugue definition.

Religion is a platform through which to worship a higher power, and following that to answer the 'why' of exsistance with varying amounts of credibility towards that end, I'll admit. Science provides us with a technical knowlege about how things work. Religion CAN'T, and never claimed to bring us the modern wonder of things like Toothbrushes.

Religion has done a lot of harm, so no one is arguing that. But, esspecially on an induvidual level, many people find a great deal of personal fullfilment in having (or beliving they have) a relationship with God. Even if it doesn't amount to complete altruism when it comes to acting on that relationship, I don't think that diminishes humanitarian efforts or technilogical advancement done under it's banner. I mean, can you tell me that all secular efforts to assist hurricane victims and the like aren't motivated at least partly by a desire to be viewed in a positive light? To make themselves feel good? If I told you that I was raising 5 million dollars to fund AIDs research, would you ridicule me for advertising it, claiming that I was only doing it to look good?

Yes such efforts exsist outside of religion, but if it acts as a partial motivator, provides sense of morality that doesn't infringe on the rights of others... I mean, we're talking about defending religion in it's beneficial applications, not this overarching 'anything goes becuase it's religion'.

Anyway, Ty ninja'd me with a novel, so I'm going to be reading for the next 6 hours it looks like. :(

Demetrius

01-10-2007, 06:10 AM

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-10-2007, 09:02 AM

I'm not being unfair. I dare you to come up with a mark on humankind made by religion that hasn't been negative.

Genetics: Started by Austrian Monks.

Education: Most schools and modern education system started by churches and missions originally.

History: Printing press and keeping of historical records in monasteries.

Art: Do I even need to list the number of paintings, sculptures, and the like that have been inspired by the Bible?

Civil Rights: Rev. Martin Luther King Jr,

Abolishment of Slavery: Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Abraham Lincoln, a Christian.

Development of modern democracy: John Locke, wrote treatise of government which inspired the American Constitution and promoted gender/racial equality based on rationalization from Scripture.

Anti-Vietnam War: Rev. William Sloan Coffin.

I could keep going, but I think my point has been made. In fact, for your 'religious wars' point I could also say very few wars have been solely religious. Usually they're a political maneuver by a charismatic leader who simply uses religion to control the populace. So even then, its bad man using something for bad purposes. Religion was just a misused tool, not the cause.

You see, Locke, when people take an extreme stance on a philosophical subject without making any concessions, they become that much easier to dismiss. If you take points of view that are blatantly wrong, even to those who would generally agree with you, the leaps and gaps in your logic come to a conclusion which becomes very easy to rip apart. In fact, most of your premises are highly debatable (and some are outright obviously wrong). If you want to persuade or convince people, you have to take a well-rounded approach which will appeal to people. Otherwise you might come across as uninformed or immature about the subject, and we wouldn't want that now would we?

In fact, even before your call for "specific examples of the good of religion", you failed to give any specific examples of the bad. They were generalizations. There are specific examples, to be sure, but not in 'science=only good, religion=only bad' that you imply. In fact the biggest wars of our time (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Cold War) weren't religious at all... in fact you could say some of the concepts of Communism and Nazism came from the deductive, philosophical reasoning you prize so much. Godless societies (Soviet Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany) have been just as warlike, or more so, than Christian societies. If religion was the cause of wars, that would imply those places would be havens of peace.

Tydeus

01-10-2007, 09:09 AM

Tydeus,
To solve the paradox of GOD with the whole time thing is fairly simple (in my mind at least), GOD is not temporal; he is omnipresent, in all places and times. We being corporeal and temporal cannot function or comprehend things in that scope. This is somewhat akin to what I am saying. (http://www.wtfcomics.com/archive.html?287_261)

Actually, the paradox arose from the idea of an omnipresent God, which exists in all times at once. To quote myself (bold added):

"I suppose the only counter-argument to offer is that God knows our decision only after we make it, in the future, or something? But then we have a God who exists in all times at once, and a non-linear idea of time. And then we, at a given instant, would be coexisting with ourselves at all other instants throughout our life. Of course, this would mean infinite selves, which is awkward certainly, but it would also mean that we are not one single being progressing through time, but rather simply a collection of beings, each one bound to his own instant. And each one has memories of the ones that dwell to the "before" of him (much as one would dwell to the north or south) as being part of himself, so the illusion is maintained. Each instant self is perfectly unchanging for all eternity.

If God knows our choices because he exists in all times, we therfore have non-linear time. God is distinctly unique in such a scenario because he is somehow able to transmit information between his instantaneous selves (or somehow exists "outside of time" whatever the hell that means), and remain a whole, unified, progressive being. Meanwhile we are but predestined particle conglomerations, frozen for eternity in place, and our non-linear God has already seen and known these simultaneous realities as unchanging since the beginning of the universe. Indeed, if this is correct, than an infinity of realities feature particles arranged as "mes," at various stages of typing this post. If this is correct, then the end of the universe happened at the very beginning, because the whole thing would have just popped into existence, and we're all just foolish, deluded selves existing with false memories of anythin but the instant we truly live in.

I really don't see how free will and a knowable future are compatible.

Further, if God knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree -- betraying God -- before he even made them, why would he make them, if he already knew how such an endeavor would end? Or at least, wouldn't he remove the tree? But of course, then Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten of the tree, and God's knowledge of the event would then correspond to their obedience, which in turn eliminates the need for God to retroactively fix the problem of obedience, because futre God would never have relayed to past God what Adam and Eve were to do, and so past God would have made the tree, as that was apparently the original design. But, then, Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree to future God's knowledge, and he would inform past God, and so we have a paradox."

I made some edits to this to clean it up and make my point even clearer, so please take a look even if you read it the first time.

I think there is also some confusion in terminology involving religion as the semi-political entity of the church (historically the Catholic Church), and the actual personal set of beliefs and personal relationship with GOD (in Christianity).

Is this regarding me, or others? I don't think I addressed any Catholic dogma specifically...

Genetics: Started by Austrian Monks.

Education: Most schools and modern education system started by churches and missions originally.

Well, the Greeks and Romans had their academies, and really while the Church still controlled all the institutions of learning in the Middle Ages, it made them rather stagnant, repetitive places, where there was very little in the way of generative academia, until about the 12th century at the earliest, and even then, what do you have? Aquinas? Not a hugely relevant guy to this day, whereas Greek and Roman philosophical schools have shaped philosophical ideation to this day.

History: Printing press and keeping of historical records in monasteries.

The printing press was indeed a very useful invention, with wonderous ramifications for mankind. However, I'd hardly say that Christians were keepers of history, exactly. After all, a tremendous amount of historical documentation was lost in fall of the Western Empire. Really, we should have far more Roman works than we do -- it's just that Rome's products were treated with such callous contempt that there was almost no preservation, as opposed to the Byzantines' comparative success in sustaining much ancient Greek knowledge.

Art: Do I even need to list the number of paintings, sculptures, and the like that have been inspired by the Bible?

Civil Rights: Rev. Martin Luther King Jr,

Abolishment of Slavery: Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Abraham Lincoln, a Christian.

Development of modern democracy: John Locke, wrote treatise of government which inspired the American Constitution and promoted gender/racial equality based on rationalization from Scripture.

Though, really it'd be more honest to admit that most of the men involved in Enlightenment thinking, and fostering the rebirth of democratic ideals were moving away from their time period's established religions. Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Voltaire, Diderot, Bacon, Spinoza, etc, etc. All were moving basically towards atheism, though hardly any went that far, due to the lack of understanding of where the universe could have originated from without a creator.

Ultimately, we come to a causation/correlation debate. Would these advancements have happened without religion? If so, would they have been slower to come, or faster? Would they have been more successful? And so on.

I'm not disagreeing with you, exactly Swordchucks -- I think Locke is being rather simplistic. However, I think you are perhaps overstating religions' claims to worldly advancements.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-10-2007, 09:51 AM

Well, the Greeks and Romans had their academies, and really while the Church still controlled all the institutions of learning in the Middle Ages, it made them rather stagnant, repetitive places, where there was very little in the way of generative academia, until about the 12th century at the earliest, and even then, what do you have? Aquinas? Not a hugely relevant guy to this day, whereas Greek and Roman philosophical schools have shaped philosophical ideation to this day.

I'm talking about the little schools started in towns and villages all across North America from 18th century onwards. Much of our education system owed itself to church funding until the separation of church and state. In my province, about 3 of every 4 schools was started by a minister of some kind.

All were moving basically towards atheism, though hardly any went that far, due to the lack of understanding of where the universe could have originated from without a creator.

I'm not sure if you can actually say they were moving towards atheism exactly. It's wholely possible they could have rested neatly in the same place people like I stand right now. After all, its completely possible to believe in God and still think very logically and rationally (in spite of what some people would have you believe). They may have been bucking the traditional role of blind faith, but that doesn't neccessarily lead towards atheism.

It's a common mistake to place atheism as higher up on the rationalization ladder, and that the more you reason and logically analyze the situation, the more you'll come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Thats not true.

C.S. Lewis, for instance started off, as an atheist, and reasoned and logically analyzed the situation until he came to the conclusion that God DOES exist. Those guys may have come to conclusions that rejected traditional Catholicism, but to state if they went further they'd have ended up as atheists is a claim that has absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever. It comes down to merely a 'what you think would have happened'. Thats not a very convincing line of reasoning, its a very subjective extrapolation.

Loki, The Fallen

01-10-2007, 03:04 PM

Yes, I equate it with religious doctrine. Why? First, it appears to be one of the purposes of this thread, to discuss our beliefs and thoughts. To quote its creator

We, the Nuklear Power Forums moderators and administrators, are putting our faith in you the community, to be able to discuss faith, metaphysics, theology and belief, in a reasoned, civilized, adult manner.

And so I am. Is it really apples and oranges? It can be your belief that science is greater then religion, that logic trumps faith, but how is this different from someone who believes faith trumps logic, which their belief system is greater then your 'scientific' beliefs on how one should live?

This leads me to my discussion with Locke:

I don�t believe in controlling these things...

How? That's the only way to prevent their 'bad' usages.

Okay, so that was a bad way of phrasing it. I don't believe that they should be removed from society, that we should completely abandon them, which you appear to be advocating.

We must stop thinking about thoughts and ideas as harmless wisps in the wind. They are real and they exist, and they have tangible effects on our society in every way. You can't and shouldn't be able to go around with unjustified ideas unchecked. It is dangerous, because ideas are memetic. And bad ideas spread just as much as good ones.

Wow. 'Unjustified' ideas, in this society, are definitely not left unchecked. We as a society are constantly arguing and discussing ideas, faiths, and thought. Even in our entertainment industry, in our newspapers, in our blogs, and even on our forums we constantly discuss and argue ideas each side may believe is unjustified, and it appears to work so far, until either side decides that their ideals, their thought pattern, is so much greater that others cannot express their own, such as extremists of their ideology.

This leads me to your ideology, your belief structure. You were kind enough to point to Sam Harris's books. I asked because I wanted to learn from your side, from your thought line if you will, like those who believe in their doctrines have posted to their respective books, and cited their teachers. His point of view from his books and your quotes is quite easy to read, and I'm sure he makes points that can make sense to you. Forgive me for the use of Wiki, because it has a wealth of information on the man.

Wiki:
Harris's basic theme is that fallacious religious beliefs are the primary cause of injustice, brutality and violence among human beings and that the time has come to speak openly and unambiguously about what he sees as the dangers posed to society by religious belief.

Which he is perfectly allowed to do. His belief structure questions a large amount of religions, like Christianity and Islam, and he wants open and unambiguous discussion. The very ideologies he question also question other beliefs, and advocate against it. In this society, open discussions among 'moderates' are the norm, with extremists usually fighting it all the way.

Later in Wiki:
That the world would be a happier place if religious extremism were replaced by religious moderation is plainly suggested by Harris. He then proceeds to turn some of his strongest fire upon religious moderates themselves.

I agree on some of his point. Mainly, anyone who uses their religion as a reason to kill anyone who believes otherwise is definitely a bit extreme, and the world would be a happier place without it. But then he fires on moderates. Well, it's his beliefs.

Even Later in Wiki:
The current state of affairs in contemporary religious America is something which Harris feels should be a matter for profound national embarrassment. He notes that 44 percent of Americans, according to polls, believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years. This is roughly the same number who think that creationism should be taught in schools, to the complete exclusion of Darwinian evolution; or that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews.[3]

And you will find strange people everywhere. As George Carlin said so well:

"Think of the average stupid person and realize that half of them are stupider than that!"

But then again, polls are used by people to further their agenda. You can manipulate numbers and over sample to make your point. That has most likely been stated in another thread.

Wiki quoting Sam:
It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say �not in our name.� They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling. It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet. Moderate Muslims themselves must acknowledge this fact without equivocation.

I agree, if we found that the Terrorists were Caucasian males from 20 to 49 who believe in freedom to practice any religion you wish, but 'they believe that there is one God and He sent his only son to die for their sins', sure, I'll show up early to the airport, get my bags sifted through, and just generally be inconvenienced. Why? I'd be fricken ticked that anyone would say they followed the same beliefs as me and tried doing these things, and I'd show that I am so not them. And I'd make the same argument for Christians who follow Doctrines such as those who advocate slavery, and intolerance to the point of violence.

I also disagree with his take on spirituality, his belief on the use of torture, and his belief that 'religion is a travesty of good ethical behavior'. But once again, I advocate freedom of thought, or even peoples freedom from thought, so long as they realize they are responsible for their actions.

Now perhaps for some questions for you and your belief system? You state that science is better then religion.

How can you so blithely belittle intelligence, like that? Yes! Super smart people do say so. And we have a reason to believe them!

Because they are super smart, right?

This is where you are again mistaken and have repeatedly ignored my previous posts. These beliefs aren't so harmless as 1 + 1 = 2 (though if everyone followed your logic, the economies of the world would be in ruin). The exact literal second stem-cell research began being bogged down by religious morals, you became wrong. The exact second the planes hit the WTC, you became wrong. In your arguments, you continually try to paint religion as a harmless indulgence, but what it's about is massive, group unthinking, and this is NOT up to you. Beliefs are reflections about THE WAY THE WORLD IS. If billions of people think the world is a way which is so inconsistent and skewed that it brings about tragedies like 9/11 or the halting of stem-cell research, what you are saying is clearly false.

With your same logic, the moment science had its Josef Mengele, science became wrong. The moment science was used to create Nuclear Weaponry, science became wrong. Science and Logic are not harmless. There are people who will use science for evil, believing that they are following the right path, for the good of humanity even, but this does not mean we should stop all thought.

-Me-
This leads me to stating one of my beliefs, which a man I admire put quite well. "Undeniable Truth of Life Number 12: Freedom is God given."

Given to all, whether we deserve it or not.

I am a huge believer in freedom. Freedom to think, Freedom to strive for high goals, Freedom to learn, and Freedom to invent. It is a massive part of my faith. We are given the Freedom to make any choices we want. Consequences of those actions are deserved. Follow or violate society or God's laws and reap the rewards. Live a perfect life and you don't even need to accept His Son. But if you are not perfect, if you have lied, if you have disrespected your parents, you may need to find a different way.

And because I am nowhere near perfect, in fact, consider myself to be a pretty bad person, I believe in His Son, that he took the fall for me, and that I should constantly strive for excellence so I can try to be a decent example to those I meet, to those I speak to. But I know I can never be good enough. He knows this, and loves me anyway.
-End Me-

This leads me to ask of your Doctrine, to ask of your faith. Logic was 'discovered' by a few men long ago. It is a study of patterns found in reasoning. It is used in our computers, and in discussions of science.

What happens when someone questions scientific thought? I'm sure they are considered mad. The simple thought that scientific reasoning could fail is considered impossible to scientists, because science uses this reasoning, it cannot be questioned.

Consider for a second that someone discovers that logic is broken, that this entire line of reasoning no longer fits reality? Could you even fathom the thought that two thousand years of human thought is rendered completely false, that any such thought is proven completely bunk? Could you consider that, for even the second that I ask, that all the time you have spent thinking that reality must follow these rules, these 'laws', that something happens, something that can be demonstrated over and over, something that no part of science or logic can explain, that now all you have learned and believe is now completely false?

If you truly believe in all the knowledge man has accumulated, could you let yourself leave it? Could you allow yourself to embrace an entirely different way of thinking? Could you abandon it as easily as one changes their socks?

What if the man you believe in is discovered to be mentally unstable? What if your doctrine's leader is discovered to be an actor, a fake? What if he was simply saying such things just to rake the coals, just to stir an argument? Or even more, find that the man you believe in never really existed?

What if everything you have your faith in is completely destroyed by a new line of thought? One that can more better explain everything in reality, and perhaps can lead to greater discoveries, and perhaps a more unified thought?

It is a bunch of what ifs. And maybe it shouldn't be aimed directly at you, perhaps everyone should consider it for a second, and realize that they have a faith in something, a doctrine that cannot be questioned in their mind, one they will believe in regardless of whether they are having a nice conversation with their friends or are being asked with a gun to their head.

I presume it is for the same reason I wish that everyone was a member of my religion (didn't someone say I didn't have a religion a couple pages back? I thought I wasn't being very subtle at all when I was linking the Jehovah's Witness website, but whatever...). If everyone shared belief in the ultimate truth about existence, what big problems could we possibly have?

Exactly. Everyone should be free to share their faith, their belief. They should be allowed to think, and be responsible for their thought. The problem begins when someone's freedom is removed. Militant Islam preaches conversion by the sword. Twisted Christianity can claim to advocate the murder of homosexuals. And some faiths believe that all other religions should not be even thought of.

(Of course, according to wiki, Sam stops short of starting a Gulag. He does believe in spirituality though. It is an interesting belief he has.)

Such is why I compare it to a religion, to a doctrine. People will cling to this knowledge that other people say is true, which they may be able to prove. They cannot doubt it. To them, it cannot be questioned.

But even if I compare it to a religion, do I believe we should treat like we currently treat religion? Currently in our country there are people wish to remove all religious thought, expression, from every part of public life. I think we should allow all thought to be discussed openly, regardless. If it one doesn't like it, they can leave it. There are consequences to all choices, people have to live with them.

But because of the freedom we have now, anyone can believe what they wish. And because most moderate people believe in the freedom of religion, we can ask questions, we can talk of these things, and the only real side effect is that someone might think "God he's an idiot, the Great Unicorn is Pink!"

It's White dammit.

And now I need a break.

Tydeus

01-10-2007, 03:38 PM

I'm talking about the little schools started in towns and villages all across North America from 18th century onwards. Much of our education system owed itself to church funding until the separation of church and state. In my province, about 3 of every 4 schools was started by a minister of some kind.

Well, in America, the public school system is based heavily on the Napoleonic and Prussian systems, both of which were highly nationalistic, and relatively secular. Really, public education is more a product of the Enlightenment. That's not to say that Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) hasn't produced many great academic minds, or hasn't been host to many academic traditions (like the Jesuits, for example). However, really modern public education in the West is based more on secular, Enlightenment thinking and 19th century nationalism.

I'm not sure if you can actually say they were moving towards atheism exactly. It's wholely possible they could have rested neatly in the same place people like I stand right now. After all, its completely possible to believe in God and still think very logically and rationally (in spite of what some people would have you believe). They may have been bucking the traditional role of blind faith, but that doesn't neccessarily lead towards atheism.

It's a common mistake to place atheism as higher up on the rationalization ladder, and that the more you reason and logically analyze the situation, the more you'll come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Thats not true.

C.S. Lewis, for instance started off, as an atheist, and reasoned and logically analyzed the situation until he came to the conclusion that God DOES exist. Those guys may have come to conclusions that rejected traditional Catholicism, but to state if they went further they'd have ended up as atheists is a claim that has absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever. It comes down to merely a 'what you think would have happened'. Thats not a very convincing line of reasoning, its a very subjective extrapolation.

You've got me there, sir.

ZAKtheGeek

01-10-2007, 06:22 PM

How does it not make any sense to use a deterrent in a world full of temptation.
Because God is ultimately the cause of the temptation as well, so it's like God made us to want to do things it doesn't want us to do. Confusing!

We all seem to be forgetting Satan in all this. The reason God didn't make us machines and do just as he wills all the time was because he wanted us to make the choice to follow him on our own, thus "free will". But, Satan continually tries to derail that through tempting us all day every day. Satan gives the urges, not God. And if you look at the bible, he's given us plenty of warnings.
Does Satan actually create urges, or does he simply provide the temptation? I thought the urges were always there, and Satan just plays to them. But even if not, it doesn't really matter, since God made everything, including Satan, and since God is also all-knowing it knew exactly how all these creations would interact and ultimately turn out. If God didn't want people to be tempted, it could have done at least one of the following:
A) Never create Satan
B) Not create people with urges

And instead of launching into a free-will argument, I'm going to relaunch into a free-will argument, by quoting myself:
But it's not a choice. If God wanted all people to live in a perfect world, they would. Since God is all-knowing, it knew based simply on the concept of everything it was to create that many people would end up suffering in hell. Even if you call it free will, the choice one makes is still a function of how their mind is made and what's in it, which is something God would have known ahead of time, as well as something that resulted directly from God's own actions, since it made everything.

Basically, the choices a man makes depend on how the man's mind works, and since God made that mind, God always knew what man was going to do, before it even created him. My only assumptions here are creation (of all) and absolute knowledge.

I know this can be hard to grasp. Let's say you wrote, like, an action game. And you made a very smart AI so the game can actually be played by a CPU player. Then you make the obstacles and challenges in the game in such a way that the AI can't beat. Then you let it loose on your game. You can claim that it has "free will" due to its complex decision-making processes, but ultimately, you're the one that made those processes work the way they do, and you know exactly what it will and won't be screwed over by.

Not a perfect analogy, but I think it would help.

Bob The Mercenary

01-10-2007, 06:29 PM

But even if not, it doesn't really matter, since God made everything, including Satan, and since God is also all-knowing it knew exactly how all these creations would interact and ultimately turn out. If God didn't want people to be tempted, it could have done at least one of the following:

This really leads back to the age old question, "why?" Why were we made in the first place? Which no one knows the answer to, but I have some fun guesses.

ZAKtheGeek

01-10-2007, 07:25 PM

It really doesn't. Even if you completely disregard what I said, the question stands. Why would God make these things that could feel both pleasure and pain? Why so flawed and disobedient?

It can be your belief that science is greater then religion, that logic trumps faith, but how is this different from someone who believes faith trumps logic, which their belief system is greater then your 'scientific' beliefs on how one should live?
That's simple. Logic is the core of mathematics and of science. The only reason we're even communicating with each other is because of people's power for rational assessment. Good or bad, you cannot deny that, objectively, logic works. It's proven itself to work through thousands of years of scientific advancement, through principles and laws logically concluded by man from empirical observations; principles and laws which have been successfully used, and can be successfully used (today! even by you!) to predict the outcomes of various actions given some pieces of prior knowledge.

What I'm saying is that, through logic and observation alone, we've been unraveling the very functions of everything around us, in concrete, mathematical terms, with absolutely proven results. That's what I put my faith in.

Bailey

01-10-2007, 09:32 PM

And of course, who can forget Eru, who created Elves and Men, and gave sapience to the Dwarves?

Bob The Mercenary

01-10-2007, 09:38 PM

Okay, I just read something incredible. Give me a minute to copy and paste. It's what this entire thread has been orbiting around.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

" Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? "Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."

[No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, son."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All those terrible things - do they exist in this world? "

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!"The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Him? "

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated(?).

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you if that's okay. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies, frowning. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes.

The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'.

We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 -- You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.

We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy.

Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it." Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't.

If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains; "that for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.

Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids you can buy, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing?

The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you believethat we have evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. All previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's observable science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. What you call "science" too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters. The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "No sir, I mean-Your view of science is flawed. To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room.*Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago.

Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! Sir, biogenesis is "observable science" as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life and that animals gave birth to children of other kinds!.

Young man, the professor began tersely, I believe that science will eventually....

"That science will eventually prove that matter can be created, that life can come from non-life" interrupted the young Christian? Sir, that's not science--that's Faith! What you believe is the exact opposite of "observable science"!Your faith is in what you are calling "science", my faith is in God who created "science".

Make no mistake, Professor, we're both operating from faith."

There follows a long pause as the Professor stares the young Christian down without a word.

"And sir!, the student went on. Don't You create failure?! I mean, you set a standard for passing this class, sir and those who don't meet it, fail! Isn't that right? So by setting a standard and utilizing your previously expressed philosophy--you create failure! Professor, I mean has anybody ever flunked this class"?

"I may well be looking at such a someone right now", the Professor snarled!

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's mind?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's mind... felt the professor's mind, touched or smelled the professor's mind?"

No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's mind whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind." The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.

[Edit] These verses accompanied it:

1 John 1: 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

James 1:13 (King James Version) 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

Romans 1 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..

Archbio

01-10-2007, 09:44 PM

Next, Bob_the_Mercenary's discovery of sollipsism (and, hopefully, what the Strawman Fallacy is).

Krylo

01-10-2007, 10:01 PM

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"His argument falls apart right about here. Apathy is the absence of good.

Good is seeing someone being raped and attempting to stop it.

Zero good is seeing someone raped and walking away.

Evil is seeing someone being raped and then joining in.

Unlike cold, we have no 'zero good' mark which can not be gone below. You can easily go below not doing good on the moral scale.

"If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing?

The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."And yet none of us have free will assuming, as we must in this case, an omniscient god. This arguement has been stated about fifty bajillion times, and has yet to have any real counter arguement as to how god can be omniscient and yet our will can be truly free.

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,"The absence of evidence is not evidence.

By saying that God's moral code is absent from the world, does nothing to prove that God, or his moral code (as a being can't have a moral code without existing) exists. Surely the CHRISTIAN moral code exists, but proving that it actually belongs to God involves proving God exists.

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

"Professor. All previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?" Actually, we have observed limited evolution amongst fruit flies that have become so different from each other in the span of a few decades that they would no longer reproduce. Basically one step short of total speciation.

We've also observed the evolution and speciation of single celled organisms.

FURTHER, we have a nearly complete fossil record that allows us to track the evolution of humanity.

This arguement is flawed and rests entirely upon Evolution being called a 'mere' theory, despite the fact that it has nearly as much evidence as gravity behind it now.

The difference between theory in law is only a matter of dates in science. Give evolution thirty years and it will be the law of evolution.

Again, his arguement is terribly flawed.

The Christian looks around the room.*Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago. Firstly, may I say that on the quantum level we have already noticed that the laws of thermodynamics begin to break down as miniscule particles can appear and disappear from nowhere.

This is observable science.

May I suggest looking up 'mining the quantum field'?

FURTHER, the 'universe just poofed into existence' idea is flawed, as that many theories state that the universe never DIDN'T exist. Indeed many theories even argue that the big bang never actually happened.

The red shift theory (which gets its main components from alternate ideas on reading red shifts) is a good starting place. I have a book around here SOMEWHERE that lists off all the Big Bang opponents, that I'll get around to.

However, not even the big bang assumes the universe came from nowhere.

This boy is so far batting 0 for 0.

Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! Sir, biogenesis is "observable science" as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life and that animals gave birth to children of other kinds!Again, fossil records, evolution in single celled life forms/virii (AIDS EVOLVED into a human virus, for instance), and the fact that the simplest of life forms are merely chains of organic chemicals which could be created in a lab.

He and his professor suck at debate.

"That science will eventually prove that matter can be created, that life can come from non-life" interrupted the young Christian? Sir, that's not science--that's Faith! What you believe is the exact opposite of "observable science"!Your faith is in what you are calling "science", my faith is in God who created "science". Science has already proven those things.

"And sir!, the student went on. Don't You create failure?! I mean, you set a standard for passing this class, sir and those who don't meet it, fail! Isn't that right? So by setting a standard and utilizing your previously expressed philosophy--you create failure! Professor, I mean has anybody ever flunked this class"? The creation of failure is far different from the creation of Hell.

And again, the dichotomy that exists here is different than that from good and evil--as that a low score simply means an absence of correct answers, whereas evil, as I pointed out above, is not the absence of good.

FURTHER, failing someone who doesn't do well in a class is not a punishment of any kind. Indeed it is a good act as that letting them continue onward after having failed will only result in further hardships later on in their life.

On the other hand, by the time someone is sent to the spiritual hell, there's no chance at redemption. It is, after all, eternal. You can't just 'retake' life, study harder, and get a passing score next time. PLUS, it is obvious what they want you to learn in a class, where it is not so obvious here in reality. Which religion is real? Are any of them? Do they want us to learn to hate the homos, kill the infidels, spread the faith, or love thy neighbor? What are we being tested on again? Faith or morality? You may THINK these answers are clear, but that's only because you've grown up with your religion. Anyone who has searched for their's knows that in reality, none of them are clear at all.

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's mind?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's mind... felt the professor's mind, touched or smelled the professor's mind?"

No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's mind whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind." The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.
CAT scans, MRIs, autospies, X-rays and thousands of biological experiments prove that every human needs a mind.

It's a good thing he's dropping, as if the class grades anything on logic, he'd surely fail terribly.

Next, Bob_the_Mercenary's discovery of sollipsism (and, hopefully, what the Strawman Fallacy is).Straw-man fallacy only applies when you're attacking a secondary and weaker point of your opponent's arguement in an attempt to distract the real point.

I'm not convinced this is one, as it targetted many points.

However, it's also completely worthless as the logic throughout is backwards and ridiculous, and I could probably point out about five DIFFERENT logical fallacies committed by the student if I really wanted to waste time putting a name to all of them.

ZAKtheGeek

01-10-2007, 10:07 PM

Hardly any scientific explanation. It relies entirely on the semantics of good and evil.

Science also relies on more than just observation. There's logic, too, as you might recall. From somewhere. We can deduce ideas and things which we can't directly observe, from that which we can observe. So, another flaw.

It's also assumed that the professor believes in some sort of starting big bang, before which there was nothing. No way there could be an alternate theory to satisfy the student's cited law, like an eternal universe. Although it's kinda hypocritical to be using conservation of matter and energy and demanding only observed things at the same time. I'm pretty sure matter and energy hasn't been observed not being created or destroyed at all points in time, yet the student has no problem using the law to his advantage. Flaw++.

Finally?

Tell me, professor. Do you believethat we have evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
Need I say more?

Darth SS

01-10-2007, 10:07 PM

Also just tossing this out...

The lack of energy behaves the exact same as energy does.

Stand outside a furnace and open the door, you feel heat rush at you.

Stand inside a house during a winter in Canada, and open a door and you get the exact same sensation just with cold.

It doesn't matter which way diffusion is going. If you have a two color system of sodium ions and no sodium ions, and alternate the colors then you get the exact same image just going the other way.

Archbio

01-10-2007, 10:17 PM

Straw-man fallacy only applies when you're attacking a secondary and weaker point of your opponent's arguement in an attempt to distract the real point.

What if you attack a weaker, or even crippled, version of the argument, like this tripe does several times?

Nevertheless, I still think fake debates like this are very poor form, Socrates be damned. Tract material.

Bob The Mercenary

01-10-2007, 10:20 PM

Feh, at least it got the discussion going again. I thought this thing died.

Fifthfiend

01-10-2007, 10:40 PM

http://ubersoft.net/comics/osw20070110.png

Topical!

Feh, at least it got the discussion going again. I thought this thing died.

It's not like there's a requirement saying this thread be going at all times. If someone's got any particular thing to say about religion then they can say it here, if nobody's got anything else to say theeeeeeeen they can not say anything.

Magni

01-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Why is it that God gave us free will, but can punish us for the choices we decide to make with our "God given" free will?

And we evolved from ancient apes, not monkeys.

And as we evolved from those ancient apes, so did God.

Fifthfiend

01-10-2007, 10:45 PM

Why is it that God gave us free will, but can punish us for the choices we decide to make with our "God given" free will?

Well if you take Preacher's explanation (http://www.amazon.com/Preacher-Vol-1-Gone-Texas/dp/1563892618/sr=8-1/qid=1168486793/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7772834-0875138?ie=UTF8&s=books), it's cause God's a huge junkie.

I'm going to be honest, I don't really consider comic books to be less valid than any other source of theological polemicism.

Demetrius

01-10-2007, 10:55 PM

GOD is perfect. Goodness in a sense is how close to the perfection of GOD that we can get. Satan was created perfectly, with a design and purpose, he was not a mistake. He is not GOD's equal or even his nemesis, he is a creation.

Once more this is about beliefs, not science. Science co-exists with belief and doesn't disprove it at all. To say that science disproves GOD is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence that He doesn't exist, there is no (to the atheistic mind) evidence he does exist, therefore there is not enough evidence to make any conclusion.

Also you use logic to prove logic, science to prove science... Faith proves faith.

Tool, have you read any of the past pages? Free will has been gone over 800 times. GOD sets into place natural rules, such as cause and effect. He states that if you do this, this is what will happen, its your choice. It isn't like He hides around a corner with a bat and says "Hehe, if they make this turn I get to smack 'em with my bat!� He set into place a system and let us know the rules, then said what we do is our choice, and the consequences are our responsibility.

The evolution statement you made about GOD coming from ancient apes, care to explain how you came by that or are you just trolling?

Darth SS

01-10-2007, 11:05 PM

POS Industries

01-10-2007, 11:08 PM

Feh, at least it got the discussion going again. I thought this thing died.

Replace the word "thought" with "hoped" and you have my feelings on the subject.

Anyway, I've seen waaaaay too much freaky paranormal shit in my day to be able to say, "Hey, you know, I'm all for ghosts and space aliens and spooky psychic powers, but some omnipotent deity is just going too far!"

And I have my own ideas about how such a being might actually operate from my understanding and study into the ways of the universe. That everything is a macrocosm of something smaller, and a microcosm of something bigger. How an electron orbits a nucleus the same way that a moon orbits a planet and a planet orbits a star. How a cell operates internally the same way as the whole organism in which it is contained, and how that organism operates so similarly to a cell in a larger ecosystem. If this, then, is the way the universe is constructed, like a massive organism in and of itself, then why shouldn't it have a brain, a higher driving consciousness?

And so I guess that's what I've concluded "God" to be, just the universe's mind. It's not a greater being that created everything and to which we should all bow down in praise, just as a blood cell does not pray to a brain. It's just a part of the overall system, as necessary to its existance as humans, trees, rocks, air, and stars. Hell, none of these are even what we consider them to be in reality! Everything is just atoms, and atoms are just made up of smaller particles, and the smaller particles are made up of even smaller bits of energy.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away with getting off on the grandeur of life, the universe, and everything. Carry on.

Demetrius

01-10-2007, 11:20 PM

Indeed.

It would be nice Zak, if you would pay attention to all of the posts, not just the ones that you can poke holes in. See Logical Fallacies in the Sub-forum rules:
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

Tydeus on the religion/catholocism bit I wasn't refering to you.

Further, if God knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree -- betraying God -- before he even made them, why would he make them, if he already knew how such an endeavor would end? Or at least, wouldn't he remove the tree? But of course, then Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten of the tree, and God's knowledge of the event would then correspond to their obedience, which in turn eliminates the need for God to retroactively fix the problem of obedience, because futre God would never have relayed to past God what Adam and Eve were to do, and so past God would have made the tree, as that was apparently the original design. But, then, Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree to future God's knowledge, and he would inform past God, and so we have a paradox."

There is no paradox, things are according to design. Again I refer you to my earlier posts:
If you make a batch file on your computer that says "You are great" over and over again who cares? Your girlfriend or significant other tells you how much they love you and want to be with you, that is something. They have a choice in the matter and they choose you.

GOD creates the possibility of choice by placing the tree in the garden. GOD created man in His image, He gave him something eternal, the soul, and He gave him the power to make his own choices. For example if I could somehow watch today's events unfold before today, does that knowledge of what will happen influence the decisions you make through the day? No. GOD set the world into motion played His pieces, set the rules and lets us do what we will. If He wanted this to be easy sure He could pop up in the skies proclaim His power, but then what's the point? Everyone believes and it takes no faith, it would be about as meaningful as me knowing that my pen is here in front of me. GOD gives you a choice, and the power to choose. He needs to fix nothing because it isn't broken.

Whatever, I'm going to take a break from this thread, just please pay attention to all of the posts. Going after an obviously weak arguement is sad, especially when there are other posts that clarify and strengthen the weak ones.

(EDIT, cause this bugs me)

FURTHER, the 'universe just poofed into existence' idea is flawed, as that many theories state that the universe never DIDN'T exist. Indeed many theories even argue that the big bang never actually happened.

The bible supports that, like in Genesis:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The universe was there, so was GOD, then he made the earth.

Krylo

01-10-2007, 11:47 PM

The bible supports that, like in Genesis:

The universe was there, so was GOD, then he made the earth.
That's... um... great? Except the point of that wasn't that the universe not poofing from anywhere goes against the bible. It was more to discredit our hypothetical student debator's ascertation that the 'scientific creation of the universe' breaks the laws of physics by pointing out that he didn't quote/understand the theory properly, and, further, didn't acknowledge that their were more than one theory to choose from.

P.S. PHYSICS RULES! GOD DROOLS!

Demetrius

01-10-2007, 11:53 PM

Oh, okay. I agree, that was a weak arguement, it only works when you talk fast and don't think too much-GAH!! Dag nabit! Krylo I'm walking away from this, taking a break, not reading it...F5-F5-F5-F5-F5-F5-F5!!

Magni

01-11-2007, 12:02 AM

The evolution statement you made about GOD coming from ancient apes, care to explain how you came by that or are you just trolling?

God didn't come from ancient apes. He came from man himself. God didn't create man, man created God. As we evolved from ancient apes, and as our brain size increase through the many forms of homo to develop conscious and coherent thought, we ultimately developed the ability to think of a concept known as "God." Or rather, a higher being that created us. You think animals like dog and fish and frogs are able to think on the same level as us? No. They are unable to think to this level or even able to care about who/what put them here, let alone to know if they were made by that being.

Man created religion to fill holes that could not be explained at the time. Hence such concepts as Poseidon, ruler of the sea. And Zeus with his mighty lighnting bolt.

Lots of civilizations have Gods that don't coincide with Christianity. The Greek Gods are one, the Mayan and Aztec gods are another. Aztecs had no encounter with a foreign populous until the Spanish invaded. They had no idea of Christianity, or one God, yet they had many, well over 80.

How then can be Christianity, or any religion for that matter be THE one truth. Just because there is a supposed book that says so?

As for my God evolving with man statement: There is no record of ancient man indicating belief in an outside higher power. All of the cave drawings found by archaeologists have been found to depict pictures of prey before a hunt, and drawings of victory after the hunt. It wasn't until homo sapien (modern man) that the idea of religion or a God was put into place.

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-11-2007, 12:19 AM

His argument falls apart right about here. Apathy is the absence of good.

Good is seeing someone being raped and attempting to stop it.

Zero good is seeing someone raped and walking away.

Evil is seeing someone being raped and then joining in.

Unlike cold, we have no 'zero good' mark which can not be gone below. You can easily go below not doing good on the moral scale.
I mean, in as much as this is all true, I believe there is a more accurate way to get the point across, though that's probably purely subjective.

Heat is energy, radiant and kinetic, that exists in some way. Let us say there is an object. If this object has no such energy, is it hot? No. Is it cold? Yes.

For evil, though... let us say there is a me. Suppose I am not doing anything. Am I doing good? Of course not. Am I doing evil?

Well, no. No I'm not. In that merest of an instant in which I do no good, neither am I doing evil. There's clearly therefore, a middle ground.

Actually, we have observed limited evolution amongst fruit flies that have become so different from each other in the span of a few decades that they would no longer reproduce. Basically one step short of total speciation.

We've also observed the evolution and speciation of single celled organisms.

Hawthorne Fly Speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Hawthorn_fly). I mean, really, the main point is that much of that page is gold, here.

Edit: As I was looking through my bookmarks, I find this: how's observing a type of evolution we didn't think happened (http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2603) for you?

FURTHER, the 'universe just poofed into existence' idea is flawed, as that many theories state that the universe never DIDN'T exist. Indeed many theories even argue that the big bang never actually happened.

The red shift theory (which gets its main components from alternate ideas on reading red shifts) is a good starting place. I have a book around here SOMEWHERE that lists off all the Big Bang opponents, that I'll get around to.

The big bang is one of the most observationally backed theories in science. I mean, I'm not saying the opponents have nothing to stand on, but it's very high up there in the 'proven' grounds.

This is, however, largely irrelivent to the topic at hand, I just felt like saying that.

Again, fossil records, evolution in single celled life forms/virii (AIDS EVOLVED into a human virus, for instance), and the fact that the simplest of life forms are merely chains of organic chemicals which could be created in a lab.
I'm not sure evolution properly applies to virii, because they're not technically alive. But, I mean, it's close enough that we get the point.

The main point, though, is that we are referring to the Urey-Miller (http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html) Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey). Which is a fun moment. I particularly like the first link, since much of the information on the Miller expieriment is inundated with false information about how a 'reducing atmosphere' severely hampers the experiments and that, without it, we cannot replicate the result. But, we can. And it's there.

It also brings up something I was going to say earlier, but never got around to. Most people often question the possibility of life. How could something so complex spring up by chance? Well, frankly, the odds of life appearing on a planet at all capable of sustaining it is something in the area of one.

Which is to say, it's not unlikely. It's not bizarre. It's not even hard. At least, in the sense that, for a long time, it was thought the most unlikely process in the generation of life was the creation of self-replicating amino acids.

But, I mean... you need a lab and three weeks. The most recent evidence is beginning to indicate that life (or psuedo-life) on earth began to spring up significantly before anyone first suspected, because it's so easy.

Elminster_Amaur

01-11-2007, 12:39 AM

Here is a quote from a book titled "Zonpower" from
the Neo-Tech publishing company. Just thought you
guys would like a different perspective on this
whole "religion" thing. Also, this book was written
in 1995

Einstein's First Oversight:
Failure to Integrate Humane Consciousness On Earth
With the Grand Cycle
Consider us Earth beings with our technology of
less than 3000 years. Consider our advances
projected by the year 2000, only a few years away.
Then project that rate of growth into a geometrically
increasing curve of knowledge soaring toward a
thousand years hence, a million years hence. One
can easily see that conscious beings are altering
the dynamics of nature at ever increasing rates. And
through a relatively minuscule time span within the
incomprehensibly long, googol-year cycle, conscious
beings on Earth can quickly learn to dominate nature.
.
.
.
Human-like consciousness is the only entity in
existance that can alter the inexorable course of
nature. Human consciousness quickly advances from
building cities to utilizing nuclear power, to
developing computers, to making astronautical flights,
to corralling astro matter, to understanding the
universe, to controlling existance--and beyond forever.
This book places out on the table the notion that
beings like humans, with consciousness,
created our galaxy in order to prevent more entropy
from occurring.
Does a creator of galaxyies and universes exist?
Indeed, such a creator could not defy the laws of
physics. Yet, today, as for the past three milennia,
most people believe a creator must be some mystical
higher "authority" or power as promulgated by someone's
scriptures or edicts. ...For two millennia, such
mystical gods of creation were conjured-up by neocheaters
wanting nothing more grand than to live off the efforts
of others.
As demonstrated in the balance of this chapter,
everyday conscious beings like you and me work within
the laws of physics to create and control all heavens
and earths.
I hope that that brief interlude into the Neo-Tech's
views on Religion have amused you, or at least caused
you to think a little. To me, I think these people
took several very useful and valid ideas, and ran
several miles into the woods with them. And no,
I'm not a member of the "Civilization of the
Universe".

Demetrius

01-11-2007, 12:49 AM

Beer is the evidence of God's love and of His will to make us happy.-Benjamin Franklin

mmmm beer...

Elminster_Amaur

01-11-2007, 01:12 AM

I recognize Bob's story from somewhere. I believe that it is a much less accurate version than the first one I read, in which the second student didn't make as many of those statements. In fact, after his "absence of" arguements that darkness and cold didn't exist, he only pointed out the professor's error, and stated that evil was the absence of God. The version of the story that I read stated that the second student was Albert Einstein. Of course, I don't believe that. Just wanted to point out that someone has said that that was him, and since then the story has gotten bigger and less science oriented.

POS Industries

01-11-2007, 04:09 AM

The version of the story that I read stated that the second student was Albert Einstein. Of course, I don't believe that.

Nor should you, though it would be amusing to have Christianity attempt to make its case by quoting a Jew. Well, you know, aside from all those quotes from Jesus.

Bailey

01-11-2007, 08:57 AM

Well, considering that the argument was about whether or not there can be a God, and Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and therefor has a lot of things still in common, one of which being the existence of a God, it's not so odd to think of a Jew defending Christianity in that context, so long as you consider that what they're actually defending is one of the basic concepts held by all people of the book.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-11-2007, 09:11 AM

Speaking of Christianity being defended by a Jewish person, here's another article that I read off of a website. I won't say who wrote it, because I'm not sure if it was all written by the same guy. I do know who wrote most of it though, and he's definitely Jewish.

--------------

Herewith a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important?

I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are.

If this is what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.

But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we say to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like e this Happen?" (regarding Katrina)

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response.

She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school . the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's becoming a hell.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

---------------------

Please note, this is not intended to prove God exists. It's merely a statement by a man who think that religion shouldn't be taking all the heat.

42PETUNIAS

01-11-2007, 09:47 AM

How then can be Christianity, or any religion for that matter be THE one truth. Just because there is a supposed book that says so?

Maybe all religions are basically right, and God sends down prophets with different messages to teach what mankind needs at that specific time. Maybe Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism are all started by the same god, one who deals with the evolving state of mankind by sending down prophets to teach what humans need to learn at that time. (WOOO Bahai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai) faith for the win!)

Dragonsbane

01-11-2007, 10:50 AM

Amendment to his statement.

Demetrius and others have made those statements multiple times, and us on the science side are pretty sure we've debunked a bunch of their statements.

It's really a war of attrition at this point.

Actually, I haven't seen the existence of a creator-deity disproved or debunked yet, merely parts of the doctrine and ancient Hebrew creation-myths.

Now, a few points I've noticed thus far in the thread.

First, apathy can be considered evil. Loathe as I am to quote religious text, is not Sloth one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

Second, unless I remember wrong, we evolved from a common ancestor that we share with apes, rather than evolving from apes themselves.

Third, regarding someone's (no names for fairness) argument regarding a hypothetical being's existence outside of time. Look at it this way, you are riding on a roller coaster. In this example, the roller coaster is time. Someone standing off to the side of it is viewing it in the same manner that this hypothetical, omniscient being views time.

MasterOfMagic

01-11-2007, 01:53 PM

Archbio

01-11-2007, 02:20 PM

Dragonsbane,

Actually, I haven't seen the existence of a creator-deity disproved or debunked yet, merely parts of the doctrine and ancient Hebrew creation-myths.

Darth SS seemed to have been referring to statements having to do with those points of doctrine, and hasn't claimed any such thing.

I'm sure others in the thread have pointed out just irrelevant the lack of proof for the inexistence of any creator-deity really is.

First, apathy can be considered evil. Loathe as I am to quote religious text, is not Sloth one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

That's not a demonstration at all. It sounds just like an appeal to authority, which is why I think you're right to loath quoting it. Plus, apathy and indifference don't necessarily translate into sloth, whatever is their status concerning good and evil (I'd lean toward them just being the absence of good, myself).

MasterofMagic,

I've read through the whole thread (took me three days @.@), and while I've seen this issue appear, there's never really been an answer given that I've seen.

As far as I can tell, there hasn't been an answer. Hell's radical nature and its ackwardness in relation to the characterization and justification of god's character and objectives, as described in the thread, has been brought up several times, but that's been mostly ignored.

Just like there was several gods that could be characterized in different ways. Edit: Errr, sure, there are several interpretations presented in this thread, by several people. It's just that some of these interpretations aren't that big on internal logic, depending on what is being explained.

I_Like_Swordchucks,

It's merely a statement by a man who think that religion shouldn't be taking all the heat.

It seems to me to demonstrate anything but that. Reading it, I had rather the impression of the hegemonic thinking of some varieties of christians being very pervasive in the US public discourse. This hegemony is often expressed, as demonstrated by this article, in representing facts in a way that implies oppression of christians, which is patently ridiculous (in the context and examples given, that is).

The article is a series of warped references to media-bound controversies, most of them manufactured: the only thing it seems to add is the notion that it was written by someone jewish, which is dubious (considering just how pointededly evangelical/theocratic in an american way the whole thing is couched), but wouldn't be all that surprising. Nevertheless, it signifies nothing.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-11-2007, 02:29 PM

I have a question concerning the whole "free will" thing. Its pointed specifically to christianity, as that's the religion I'm struggling with at this point in time.

Assuming god wants us to have it, why would he make the consequences so dire? I mean, an eternity in heaven for believing in him...okay, that's fine. God's rewarding people for believing in him/worshipping him/whatever. But then...an eternity in hell? Burning forever? What?

If he loves us so much, why wouldn't he pick something less horrible? Come back to Earth and try agian? Send us to some place where it might not be a barrel of laughs the whole time, but at least we aren't frying 'till the end of time?

And why only two ends? Surely the person who lives their life for other people making only a few mistakes on the way (not believing in god being one of them), and a serial killer don't have to end up in the same place?

I've read through the whole thread (took me three days @.@), and while I've seen this issue appear, there's never really been an answer given that I've seen. Of course, its extremely possible I've missed it. I mean...damn.

I honestly don't have a clear answer for you there. What I personally think, now this can be very wrong as it my own personal view and is quite possible different than most Christians, is that there are different levels of hell.

It is a common misconception that people who go to heaven all get the same eternal bliss. Thats not true. If one reads into the Bible very carefully, your reward in heaven is directly proportional to how much good you do on earth. A person can be a murder, then repent at the last minute and go to heaven, but he's not going to be in as good of a position as someone who has loved God and done good for others all their life.

And while I have no backing for this, I could assume that hell would work the same way. Your punishment in hell could very well be proportional to how much bad you do on earth (or how little good). In that scenario a serial killer and a person who simply didn't accept Jesus would not endure the same punishment.

To be honest, I don't find the Bible all that clear in its description of heaven and hell. All it says is that Jesus is the only way you get to heaven. It says that in hell there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And I suppose there would be if you missed out on heaven... muchos regrettos.

I also think its difficult to characterize everything the way we do as humans. If God is good, for example, evil must have always also existed because in order for there to be good, there must be evil. The bible plainly states that people are evil, because there's not one of us who do nothing wrong. Even if you look at just the Ten Commandments, we're still all screwed, and it says no sin will enter into heaven. Thats where Jesus comes in... he atoned for all the bad things we did, so we get a free passcard to heaven inspite of being sinners. However, if you don't accept that he did that, then you're essentially saying "my sin is mine, and I still have it". Therefore, you cannot get in. Its not that God sends you to hell, its that you hold onto something that doesn't let you into heaven.

Christians still sin. But the bible says there is no condemnation in those that have accepted Jesus' sacrifice for them. We don't try to be 'good' people to get into heaven. We try to be good people to thank Jesus for letting us in and because its the right thing to do. But even those who make it to heaven still have their deeds on Earth put through the test... so to quote the Gladiator: "What we do in life echoes in eternity". The reward is not the same for everybody, so neither (I think) is the punishment.

42PETUNIAS

01-11-2007, 02:59 PM

It is a common misconception that people who go to heaven all get the same eternal bliss. Thats not true. If one reads into the Bible very carefully, your reward in heaven is directly proportional to how much good you do on earth. A person can be a murder, then repent at the last minute and go to heaven, but he's not going to be in as good of a position as someone who has loved God and done good for others all their life.

Care to give an example or quote from the bible? I don't know about anybody else, but I've never heard about this as a christian thing, so some evidence in the bible would make it a little more believable for me. Also, that seems like the same logic that leads to islamic suicide bombers killing themselves to get much better treatment in heaven. (I think someone mentioned something about them getting 70-something virgins/peas when they went to heaven)

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-11-2007, 03:52 PM

Care to give an example or quote from the bible? I don't know about anybody else, but I've never heard about this as a christian thing, so some evidence in the bible would make it a little more believable for me. Also, that seems like the same logic that leads to islamic suicide bombers killing themselves to get much better treatment in heaven. (I think someone mentioned something about them getting 70-something virgins/peas when they went to heaven)

Sure thing.

First of all there's the parables the tenants. Each tenant has a different award given to them. Also Jesus did the one who puts himself last shall be first, and he who puts himself first shall be last. That would imply that not everybody in heaven is given the same rank, so to speak.

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
—1 Corinthians 3:11-15

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
—2 Corinthians 5:10

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
—Matthew 12:36-37

These verses are the biggies for this. "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." I think it seems pretty clear that the serial killer who comes to Christ at the last moment gets to heaven, but by the skin of his teeth so to speak..

"each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." Also implies that your reward/punishment is relative to the good or evil you do on Earth.

Many Christians ignore verses like this and think that salvation is the start all and end all. Things put forward in the New Testament, which very few verses actually refer to the afterlife, beg to differ. I'm not surprised you've never heard of it.

ZAKtheGeek

01-11-2007, 05:56 PM

It would be nice Zak, if you would pay attention to all of the posts, not just the ones that you can poke holes in.
It would be nice if I knew what you were talking about.

GOD set the world into motion played His pieces, set the rules and lets us do what we will. If He wanted this to be easy sure He could pop up in the skies proclaim His power, but then what's the point? Everyone believes and it takes no faith, it would be about as meaningful as me knowing that my pen is here in front of me. GOD gives you a choice, and the power to choose. He needs to fix nothing because it isn't broken.
So believing in God is inherently an uncertain matter? I mean, if it were obvious that there was a god and all that, there'd be "no point." Yet those that end up not putting their faith in something flaky get eternal punishment? It just doesn't seem fair to me.

If you make a batch file on your computer that says "You are great" over and over again who cares? Your girlfriend or significant other tells you how much they love you and want to be with you, that is something. They have a choice in the matter and they choose you.
That's a poor analogy, because you don't make your girlfriend or significant other. God, on the other hand, did totally craft man.

God doesn't do things to "see what would happen." God already knows, basically by definition. There's no way God could make an intelligent species while thinking, "I wonder if they'll honor me." It already knows the answer damn well. The only way that could work is if the great one literally rolled the dice to determine what this world would be like and then created it without ever actually observing the result of the dice roll.

These verses are the biggies for this. "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." I think it seems pretty clear that the serial killer who comes to Christ at the last moment gets to heaven, but by the skin of his teeth so to speak..
If you say so. Seems like that could mean a lot of different things to me... and I can't think of a single one of them.

"each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." Also implies that your reward/punishment is relative to the good or evil you do on Earth.
I don't see how. If you have done good, you receive paradise. If you have done evil, you receive damnation. No implication of levels.

Not that I personally care whether the afterlife is further tiered. Just saying that your citations aren't very convincing.

Actually, I haven't seen the existence of a creator-deity disproved or debunked yet
That's because it's impossible. You see, the more complex a definition you give to your god, the more implausible it becomes (in the absence of evidence, anyway), and the easier it is to discredit. An definition so simple as "creator of all" actually carries very little meaning. You might say the universe always simply existed, or that it existed because something created it intentionally. There's no way to tell, and there are zero implications either way.

42PETUNIAS

01-11-2007, 06:43 PM

"each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." Also implies that your reward/punishment is relative to the good or evil you do on Earth.

As far as I know, heaven is perfection. Plain and simple. You can't have more or less perfection, it's perfect, and that's all there is to it. I could easily believe variation in hell, because it seems bizarre for any intelligent God to send good people to hell simply because they never came into contact with christianity.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-11-2007, 07:13 PM

As far as I know, heaven is perfection. Plain and simple. You can't have more or less perfection, it's perfect, and that's all there is to it. I could easily believe variation in hell, because it seems bizarre for any intelligent God to send good people to hell simply because they never came into contact with christianity.

*shrug* You asked me to provide scripture for why I believe that, and I did. There are no verses saying that heaven is 'perfect' however. In fact, to be completely honest, there's no verses saying we'll spend eternity in heaven. Many verses say there will be a new heaven and a new earth. If heaven was perfect, I can't see why God would need to make a new one. Also it says that the children of God will inherit the earth. It also says that Jesus will set up his throne on the new earth and it shall be his New Jerusalem. I'm no theologist, but one could take that to imply that we won't be in heaven all that long anyway.

Really, I don't know any more than anybody else when it comes to what happens after you die. But I do know that most typical conceptions of heaven and hell are completely societal based and have very little scriptural backing. I take what I read in the Bible, and I take what makes sense to me based on that... and the standard ideas of heaven and hell don't make sense based on the Bible itself.

If you say so. Seems like that could mean a lot of different things to me... and I can't think of a single one of them.

Sure it could mean other things. But it could also mean exactly what I think it means. There's nothing in the Bible that contradicts that idea, so as far as I can see my idea is as good as any other. I'm not trying to be convincing... 42Petunias asked me did I have bible verses to support why I believed that, and I delivered. Whether you get the same meaning from it or not is totally up to you.

Bob The Mercenary

01-11-2007, 07:23 PM

I could easily believe variation in hell, because it seems bizarre for any intelligent God to send good people to hell simply because they never came into contact with christianity.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

We all have a conscience and a sense of what is right and wrong written on our hearts from when we are born. What this verse means is that people who have never heard the rules set down in the bible won't be judged by them. But, people who have heard it will be.

Or as Rich Deem (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html) puts it:
"Paul also tells us that those who follow the law (e.g., practicing Jews) will be judged by the law. The people who have never heard of the law are judged by the law of God which He has placed into their hearts."

ZAKtheGeek

01-11-2007, 07:54 PM

That's kinda weird. Why do we need a bible to tell us what to do if we have laws in our hearts?

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-11-2007, 08:30 PM

That's kinda weird. Why do we need a bible to tell us what to do if we have laws in our hearts?

If you're trying to find a way through a foreign city, you have some sense of direction. You could potentially find your way through all on your own. But its still nice to have a map. :)

Tydeus

01-11-2007, 08:59 PM

Very Important:

I've heard this thread referred to as a "war of attrition." That distresses me, because it presents an attitude that is quite contrary to any kind of decent spirit of debate.

We atheists should not be concerned with winning any kind of "war." We should be concerned with being right, knowing the truth -- at least as much as we can, as human beings. I will not defend any portion of my beliefs if they are clearly pointed out as false. I've admitted my wrongness at least once so far, when Swordchucks pointed out a logical fallacy in a post of mine. I did not try to defend it -- I was wrong. I've also modified other views, in cases where I was not so much wrong as imprecise.

And once, although I never addressed my wrongness explicitly (for the debate had moved far on by the time I returned), I was wrong, regarding physics barring the existence of God. I was informed otherwise. Let me openly admit now, that I was intellectually pwned. I admitted to myself when it happened anyway -- why should I not want to admit it here?

In essence, what have I done in being proven wrong? I've moved closer to truth. I've expelld from my belief system an irrational and illogical and downright wrong facet. This is my aim, always, in all things. Especially in debate. I am glad that there are people here, in this forum, with the intelligence and clarity to hone my thoughts. And I hope I may do the same for them.

Of course, go and argue your views, and do so with force and vigor. But do not view this as some war to win. View it is a communal effort staged by humans to help us all move toward the truth. I think the Christians here have done a far better job of this than the atheists.

After all, what is proselytizing, if not an effort to bring others to the truth? That is a good and decent purpose, and I endorse it. I think that purpose is expressed poorly, and so I declare. But I am not the theists' enemy, nor even their opponent. I am their fellow human being, another consciousness attempting to approach truth, hoping to help us all approach truth.

If this is not the purpose of debate, then what is?

I have no axe to grind, no personal grudge that prevents me from admitting when I'm wrong. I've certainly got motivation to do so -- I've suffered the slings and arrows of the religious Right's attacks on homosexuality. I've had people tell me "I hate the way you talk, the way you walk, what you wear, how you act. I hate you. I hate everything about you people."

But you know what? It does me no good to bear a grudge against the worldview that spawned such bile. To do so would only hamper my own improvement and growth as a human being. Why would I let those who wish to harm me succeed by stifling my consciousness?

I think religion is a bad idea, and I think it is not the closet approximation to truth that exists today. I think it has negative effects on the world, and on all the individuals who practice it. I wish to aid others in seeing this, though if someone proved me wrong, I would take their demolition of my belief system as an act of love and kindness, and thank them for it.

This is why people hate atheists -- while the religious are out to "spread the Good News," the atheists are out to destroy your faith. It is perceived as an assualt. It is not. It should not be, anyway. It should be just one more group striving to show the world truth.

And to the Christians -- I hope you feel the same way. Yes, you have made a leap of faith, and you are thus fairly certain of your views. But I would hope that you consider it possible, at least, for somone to make that leap so tremendous, that you would no longer be able to make it. Even if you do not know how they would accomplish such a thing, I hope you believe it, in essence, to be possible.

I don't think this would run counter to your faith. Believing in God is believing in God. Having in your mind the possibility of losing your faith -- that is not the same thing as not believing in God. I am certainly capable of losing my atheism; I try to keep a healthy dose of doubt in my mind about such large matters. But that little bit of doubt of my beliefs, that possibilty of faith within me doesn't make me a theist. I am an atheist. I firmly believe that there is no God. But I am not certain. I am open yet, to the other side of the argument, and always will be, presumably.

So to hold in your minds the possibility of atheism would not make you an atheist. You would still believe in god, you would still be a Christian (or whatever else). But you would be open-minded. And so doubt and religion can exist in harmony. You can believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, and accept him as your savior, and yet have a little doubt, somewhere, way in the back. A little possibility, a little openness. Having the possibility of change does not make you changed. Does not change what you now are.

So, to all of us -- I hope we can view this not as a war of ideas, but as of a honing of wisdom. As martial artists spar and soldiers train, so too should humans debate, so that when the true enemy arises, we are all ready to face it.

Now, regarding specific posts:

I also think its difficult to characterize everything the way we do as humans. If God is good, for example, evil must have always also existed because in order for there to be good, there must be evil. The bible plainly states that people are evil, because there's not one of us who do nothing wrong. Even if you look at just the Ten Commandments, we're still all screwed, and it says no sin will enter into heaven. Thats where Jesus comes in... he atoned for all the bad things we did, so we get a free passcard to heaven inspite of being sinners. However, if you don't accept that he did that, then you're essentially saying "my sin is mine, and I still have it". Therefore, you cannot get in. Its not that God sends you to hell, its that you hold onto something that doesn't let you into heaven.

That, to me, makes a bit more sense. But only if we place limits on God -- no omniscience, and no omnipotence. Otherwise, we have no free will, and he could merely change heaven/himself to allow evil in (repsectively). Also, one assumes that God must be limited from direct interaction with us, or else he would have made far more direct efforts in trying to help us leave our evil behind. It's a different picture of God, but far more loving indeed.

I still don't buy it, for plenty of reasons, but we've got a whole thread to discuss that.

ZAKtheGeek

01-11-2007, 09:13 PM

If you're trying to find a way through a foreign city, you have some sense of direction. You could potentially find your way through all on your own. But its still nice to have a map.
Or, everyone could have a built-in map. That should supposedly allow the unmaphaving societies to be as moral and good as the maphaving ones, so there's no unexplained heavenly cartographic favoritism.

Clearly your analogy doesn't work for my purposes, but I think you see what I'm trying to say.

Bob The Mercenary

01-11-2007, 09:38 PM

There's too much I want to say, and again, I despise sending people to websites because I'm too dumb to come up with an argument on my own, but check this one out (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html) if you're going to look through any at all. It tries to answer every question we've talked about here and the man who writes it seems very knowledgeable on the subject.

And if you find logical fallacies, bring them up. I want you to show them to me if I'm reading something misleading. I'm also only human and, like Tydeus said, my opinion can change pretty quickly.

ZAKtheGeek

01-11-2007, 10:00 PM

I've only read the first two intros. Looking at the size of this thing, if the intros are any indication of how the whole thing goes, we could spend a couple of pages pointing out parts that don't quite make sense, and then at least 10 more pages arguing about it. *shrugs*

Bob The Mercenary

01-11-2007, 10:02 PM

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-11-2007, 10:03 PM

[b][size=5]
In essence, what have I done in being proven wrong? I've moved closer to truth. I've expelld from my belief system an irrational and illogical and downright wrong facet. This is my aim, always, in all things. Especially in debate. I am glad that there are people here, in this forum, with the intelligence and clarity to hone my thoughts. And I hope I may do the same for them.

Though I begin to question myself as I write this (just kidding), we have a very similar method of thinking. We've had very different starting points, and we've come to very different conclusions, but our methods aren't all that different.

You might have noticed that for my participation in this thread I've never really focused on the omnipotence and omniscience of God. To be quite frank, much like yourself, my opinion on it has changed over time (before this thread, but due to many of the reasons voiced).

And having studied, I'll promote a shocking conclusion. The Bible doesn't submit that God is capable of doing absolutely everything. If anything else, by reading it one could conclude that God has a nature, a behavioral pattern, a set of emotions, limitations. As Genesis so eloquently put it, God made man in his own image. The image here is not referring merely to appearance, we're basically little replicas. Some scholars would contend that we are more like God in nature than even the angels are. Instead, the Bible contends that God is the Supreme Being. Who is like God? Who can compare with God? Nobody, clearly, but supreme and omnipotent are two different things. God could easily be by far the Creator of the universe, infinite, and the most powerful being in existance without conforming to our definition of omnipotent.

For instance, God can't lie. God can't do evil. God can change his mind. God can be angry. God can be jealous. God can be happy. There are things God hates. There are things he loves. Certain characters in the Bible have been called God's friend. There's even a contradiction in omnipotence and omniscience, because an omniscient being would have no free will... which God clearly would have.

For God's knowledge, I see him look at things on a spectrum. Instead of viewing time as a "roller coaster" he might instead view time as a tree with many branches. He might see the consequences of any choice we could make, but he gives us the free will to choose.

You see, like Tydeus, I take my worldview and then I tweak it by removing the things that don't make sense. Trust me, my view tends to be unpopular with both Christians and athiests alike. God is a Supreme Being. He is beyond challenging by any other being. But I think careful examination of the Bible reveals he does have limitations.

Now to the heaven versus hell thing I mentioned which Tydeus commented on. If God indeed has a certain nature, and must abide by his own rules (In fact you could say the rules are a part of who and what he is rather than he created them, because I would think the rules would exist simply by God existing. I can't imagine him existing before the rules). Therefore he does what he can do without messing with free will, even finds loopholes (like Jesus dying on the cross), and makes every effort he can to extend to humanity.

Why would he make humanity? Man is in God's image much the way children are in the image of their parents. If christianity is right, we are all descendants of God (he was by definition the father of Adam and Eve). Parents take pride in their children, want to have children, yet a good parent also allows the child to face consequences for the bad decisions the child makes. It hurts a parent when they see their child go to jail for a crime, and they still love their child. Yet the law says their child must go, and the Good parent obeys the law.

Now I'm rambling because I'm getting sleepy. It's very difficult to place my entire worldview into words, and I disagree with my denomination on several points. Hopefully I came across as more of a rational thinker than a blind faith follower, because even the Bible tells me to be as wise as a serpent and as wary as a dove.

Krylo

01-11-2007, 10:12 PM

In light of the many jokes we say to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.No. It's a joke. Just not the funny kind. More the pathetic and useless kind. Allow me to illustrate...

She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"Bullshit.

Calmly backing out like a gentleman does not mean turning your back on those people later on. That's what storming out like a child and throwing a temper tantrum is like.

I mean, there are plenty of better ways to absolve God from that, even without claiming his inexistence. I mean, fuck, just blame it on satan. It's what they do with everything else. Or call it a test. Yeah, it's a test of our faith. Whatever.

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.I'm pretty sure the terrorism started when Bush, a man who believes whole-heartedly in God, decided to completely ignore warnings of a terrorist attack handed down from the administration before him. Or maybe it was when RELIGIOUS extremists, men who believe in god SO HARD that nothing else matters, decided to blow up buildings by killing themselves and planes full of people.

I'm also pretty sure that school shootings started when teachers couldn't be bothered to deal with the mental health of their students or stopping bullies from pushing youths to sucide, and when those youths made the decision to not ONLY kill themselves, but as many of their tormentors as possible.

I mean, I'm just saying that the absence of religion is FAR from the defining factor in these things. They rather have much more easily identifiable factors.

FURTHER, talk to your grandparents in frank terms about what they did when they were kids in school. I mean, grandaddy may not have had access to a gun, but I know my grandpa at least got into knife fights and was in a gang in elementary school that bullied adults.

This isn't something new. It's just something only recently being reported.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school . the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.The bible also says to stone your children to death.

FURTHER, reading the bible in school is FAR from illegal. The only thing illegal is teaching the bible as fact in public schools, as it should be.

It's not that we live in an athiestic country (nice as that would be), but rather that we live in a religiously free country, and as such teaching any religion as fact in public schools severely impedes upon the religious freedoms of everyone not of that religion.

Teaching the bible as literature, however, is far from illegal, and is still done AND useful on the basis that many other works of literature draw from and to it.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's becoming a hell.Crime rates + Time show that violent crime has been dropping steadily since the 1920s, so I must ask what the hell this guy is even talking about with immoral and violent children.

The ones who are immoral and corrupt are the newscasters who have brought the knowledge and glamorization to things that have been happening since... well... forever, to higher degrees than they are now.

Resource A: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm Note the chart at the bottom that shows the crime rates in the US dropping steadily since the 80s. Most of the rest of the world is also dropping, as well, with the notable exception of austria.

Resource B: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

In fact, if you look the only violent crime that has really gone up is rape from the 1920s, however that's one of the ones that 'doesn't really count' so far as this is concerned, as that in the 1920s rape was like, two laughs short of legal, and the overall awareness of rape has increased resulting in a greater crackdown and fewer people getting off.

Which is to say, there was probably more rape in the 1920s as well, just that hardly anyone went to jail for it.

Indeed... the sharpest fall in violent crime rates was in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, which would be about the time when the whole "Religion outta government/school/everywhere else" really reached critical mass.

I mean, if we want to draw connections between violent crime and the proliferation of religion in public life. I don't particularily think that is necessarily connected, just saying that if you're going to make THAT connection, it doesn't go the way this guy says. (Fun fact, it also started falling really sharp around the time FF7 came out, and video games became really popular... these two things also happened at around the same time.)

MOVING ON!

From Bob's site: Most skeptics believe that humans invented God as a means of comfort against an uncertain world that is filled with peril and disappointment. However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4On the contrary, the gods of ancient Sumeria didn't allow ANYONE to escape punishment, and ranged from super holy to super assholes.

The gods of olympus, again, allowed very few men, regardless of their moral caliber to escape sin.

The prime gods of ancient Egypt were seen as perfectly and untouchable-y holy (and, indeed, being but the distant relative of one of them made you perfectly holy and unquestionable), AND allowed only the most absolutely righteous and pious men into the favorable afterlife. Your soul had to be so light of sin as to be able to nearly float. In other words--no one passed the test to get into the underworld fairly.

FURTHER, the idea of a god that is absolutely perfectly moral and all powerful is quite possibly the most comforting idea one can think of. No matter what happens in this world we can believe it is for the greater good, as that it is the will of a perfectly good and all powerful god. How could anything that happens not be good in the end? It may seem bad now but 'God works in mysterious ways' and 'God has a plan' and his plan will work out in the end, right?

I see no reason that this should be harder to believe in, than, say, Zeus.

It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.So then the Buddha exists? The Eternal Tao is accurate? Vishnu and Brahma are real? Allah is the one true god, and so is the christian God?

This arguement is patently ridiculous. Honestly it even equally validates Zeus/Jupiter et. al. After all, thousands of Greeks believed in them well into adulthood. The only way it would make any sense is if either there was only one religion in the world, or every god could coexist. As that neither of these things are true, it's completely invalid.

In addition to the above problems, believing a lie contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. In fact, Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, says that he has carefully investigated everything so that the truth may be known.6 Christians are told to believe and practice only truth,7 and warned against believing and practicing lies.8 So, the idea that they would violate their conscious and beliefs just to feel better makes no sense.And for THIS arguement to work, Christians would have to know, 100%, with empirical evidence, that God exists or does not exist.

Without that 100% knowledge, they are not violating their belief of truth by believing in God because they don't know that God isn't real.

Just like if someone were to say, leave a heavy camera on the edge of a railing on the empire state building, and someone was tripped, stumbled, and their back knocked the camera without them ever noticing. Then that camera killed someone. Well, that person didn't just violate their belief that killing is wrong, because they had no idea they were killing someone, or even that someone is dead at the end of it. The belief is intact.

Again, this arguement does not hold.

The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet.KP. Few pages back. Three hours in a lab to create life.

This guy sucks at this.

It was obvious to this honors student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself, the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.

Ahem. Three hours. Not a problem. On the life thing. And on the 'eternal universe' thing. Answered. Many times. In many ways. All of which are equally valid. All of which equally discount this guy.

ALSO! the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120. I've really wanted to bring this up.

There IS no fine tuning. The idea that the universe was created in such a way that life could survive here is ridiculous. It's EXACTY THE OPPOSITE WAY AROUND! Life came about in such a way that was capable of surviving in this universe.

If we lived in a world that had slightly different levels of gravity, or warped space time, or whatever, we'd be sitting here having this same discussion. Only we'd think that our universe, which nothing from THIS universe could survive in, was the one in ten to the power of one-hundred-thirty-two chance.

I mean, even supposing the idea of a god, it would be far more efficient for him to create the universe and then create life capable of existing in that universe, rather than creating a universe around the idea of a certain type of life being able to exist there.

Honestly, guys, stop posting poorly created arguements from elsewhere.

You're ALL much better at this. MUCH better.

At this point I see no reason to read the rest of the site, as the part I did read (fully) was had more logic holes than swiss cheese. Not that swiss cheese has logic holes. Swiss cheese has cheese holes... but if we were to assume that the cheese holes were logic holes, then the guy has more logic holes than swiss cheese does.

ZAKtheGeek

01-11-2007, 10:16 PM

I've read a bit more of that large site. Yeah, it seems to become much less convincing when it tries to explain Christianity as opposed to vague creation. More later!

Instead of viewing time as a "roller coaster" he might instead view time as a tree with many branches. He might see the consequences of any choice we could make, but he gives us the free will to choose.
That's how I see it too. Except it knows which branch will happen. Like I've written a couple of times already, there's really too much mystification over this concept of "conscious thought." It's not some random, chaotic, unpredictable process! One can know what choices a person will end up making, what will go through their mind, especially if they're all-knowing (supreme probably works too) and the designed that very mind.

To refer to the site, it says that God didn't actually make you because you came from your parents and not God directly. Well, if God can know what at least his original people thought, as well as how this universe it designed works, then it should easily have been able to predict exactly what would happen, everywhere, at any point in time. No cop-outs; God made everything. God can be blamed for everything.

Bob The Mercenary

01-11-2007, 10:35 PM

Well, I'm happy to have participated in this, and it's been a fun discussion, but that was my last bullet in a chamber full of duds, apparently. I have nothing else to offer thaat would be of any use, and I'm exhausted (reading the retorts have actually helped put me to sleep, not insinuating that they've been boring).

Who knows, maybe this entire faith thing stems from the fact that I can't stand thinking that some people won't be able to see their loved ones again, and a lot of them never got to say goodbye. I'll check back in here from time to time, but as of now, I'm spent.

You're all excellent debaters, by the way, not that I'm one to rank anyone else. It's what puts this forum above others.

And this thread was a great idea, fifth. :)

42PETUNIAS

01-11-2007, 10:46 PM

I'm looking at the site that Bob linked to. Most of the stuff looks pretty valid, but right now I'm taking a look at one of the arguements (Why would god create a person predestined for hell) because we had talked about it in this thread. The arguement seemed pretty weak as much as I'v read.
Here's the part that's supposed to prove that we all have free will.
You have absolute free will within the confines of your personal ability. You can prove this to yourself. Determine two possible courses of action. They don't have to be big decisions, just any two possible actions. Assign each action to either "heads" or "tails." Flip the coin and do what whatever course chance decided. You can do this as many times as needed to determine that you do, indeed, have free will. Occasionally, do the opposite of what the coins tell you. Has God prevented you from doing anything? No!

This arguement declares that God as omnipotent, and yet it declares that anything we do in the world that this omnipotent being created can not be influenced by this being. I don't see how this is supposed to prove that we have free will, so much as it is to prove that we have the illusion of free will.

The second incorrect assumption is that God alone has created you. You are the product of choices made by your parents. Therefore, God has not predestined you to be born at all. How can you blame Him for creating you to send you to hell?

If God is indeed omniscience, then the second he even considered creating the first man, he immediatly knew everything that would follow. Ever. He knew I would be here, at this moment, typing at my computer, he knew exactly who would be alive at any time, anywhere, and so on and so forth. God created the first man, with an exact knowlege of what this creation would bring, therefore, god created me. I don't see any other way that God couldn't know that the creation of the first man would bring me. He knew that I would not accept Jesus (Unless I happen to convert later in life), and that I will go to hell because of it. Therefore, when he created the very first man, he destined me to hell.

I'd love to read the rest of the article, and analyze it too, but frankly, it's lights out on campus, and I have to go. I hope I don't miss too much tonight.

Archbio

01-11-2007, 10:47 PM

Bob_the_Mercenary,

I'm not going to go through that whole website. In fact, I'm not going to read any more than I've already read.

That is, the article about "Who created God?" (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html), because I thought it would be illuminating to see how they tackle that question. They don't.

"God has always existed because he's outside of time as normally conceived, where cause and effect don't apply"

Questions of time and space are a little beyond my depth, but since I suspect it's beyond whoever wrote this too, I'll take a shot at it. That "cause and effect don't apply" means that effect doesn't follow cause, but, to me, it doesn't mean that you can have an effect without a cause. It just means that that cause can be located at points in time that you would, in normal time, not expect it to be.

But in all fairness, nothing is impossible, and they don't even have to posit some vague woo about things out of time to be able to get away with the notion that God always existed. It's conceivable that there's something eternal about the universe: to me, it's more plausible than something out of nothing.

Here's the rub: I've always heard theists of all stripes go against this idea. Watches must have watchmakers, ect. Normally, they're consciously blind to the notion that their religion, be it disguised as philosophy or science, hasn't got the high ground on this at all. If the universe must have a creator, than so does the creator. If the universe must have an origin, the origin... well... it hardly makes sense to stop there because it fits an ancient dogma.

That's why I was interested in this section so particularly. It was a rather unpleasant surprise.

Why can't the universe be eternal?

Imagine that. They have an answer! Goodie!

First, they acknowledge the rub:

The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all.

Strange. It seems that this is couched as if theism (or even religion) was the default hypotheses. That first sentence goes very far in that implication, and I think it might be the strongest statement in that sense the article makes. That doesn't mean it relents in this. I'm not going to note it the other times, but I count this as an indication of a very skewed vision of things: scientists don't factor God in.

Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal.

It did? That sound like fresh totallymadeupstuff. I thought the idea of an eternal universe was still fairly credible!

This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct!

Oh yes, that sounds like the workings of the scientific mind right there. Instant conversions!

Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" to attempt to explain away the existence of God.

No comment.

Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.1 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe)

Suddenly, they care about the laws of the universe, in cotnradiction of the "effect don't need causes!" crap that's the base of the whole article.

it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists.

This goes beyond imagining everyone is secretly theist. It combines that and the notion that atheism, or science, is religion. Anything unproven that has to do with the origin of the universe is a God. Why even bother misusing language like that? If they didn't, they couldn't do what follow:

And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.

It has to be a god, or else they couldn't qualify it as a "non-intelligent god", making the term more complex and apparently kicking Occam's chainsaw into gear. I say "making the term more complex" because I have no idea how a thing qualified by non-intelligence would be more complex than something qualified by intelligence, everything else being equal.

Intelligence implies structures, patterns, ideas. Intelligence evokes a brain or Skynet. Non-intelligence evokes a lump of mud or a pile of rock.

In conclusion:

The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

Again, intermittent care for evidence, logic and science. God comes out of top, because they're religious. Why even bother writing this?

From Krylo's post:

However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible.

To add something to Krylo's reponse to this which is already fairly complete: gods as a source of authority isn't just comforting to the believers, it's also very comforting to the mortals claiming authority. The fact that this site ignores what might be the second most cited reason why gods were invented: to create legitimacy to the rulers. Indeed, I've come across the idea, more than once, that originally, any measure of leadership on a scale that we now consider significant only could come from the gods.

This seems to be compatible with the theocratic nature of the most ancient governments, and the fact that their gods were the reflection of temporal governments.

Bailey

01-11-2007, 10:56 PM

This is probably going to get torn apart by both sides within ten minutes of me posting it, but whatever. I'm bored.

Suppose that, perhaps, God is a game developer who has come up with an advanced AI system and is testing it out.

For the purposes of this jaunt into madness, let us come up with methods of rationalizing the omni-s.

Omni-present: God has the debug codes to get to anywhere He wants to be.
Omni-potent: Again, debug codes. He simply changes the code and something is.
Omni-scient: God programmed everything himself, didn't He? Of course He would know all about it.
Omni-bonum(dunno if that's the right word but it sounds about right): The world is in Beta and God is still weeding out the bad.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-12-2007, 07:28 AM

It's not that we live in an athiestic country (nice as that would be)

Uhhuh. Cuz Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and China are such wonderful places. You realize you succeed in proving little more than there are some bad religious people, and some people misuse religion in any of your posts?

KP. Few pages back. Three hours in a lab to create life. Ahem. Three hours. Not a problem. On the life thing. And on the 'eternal universe' thing. Answered. Many times. In many ways. All of which are equally valid. All of which equally discount this guy.

Wow. Isn't that so wrong? That experiment KP mentioned didn't result in life, nor anything close to it. Nobody has ever EVER created life in a lab. The best they've done is mix carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen together an watched them form amino acids after blasting them with excessive amounts of energy.

Now for a biology lesson... an amino acid is the smallest possible unit of a protein. One protein generally contains anywhere from 500 to 2000 amino acids. A cell, the smallest form of life, contains hundreds of different kinds of proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids. An amino acid is not life, nor anywhere close to it.

But its not really much of a surprise that if you mix all the required materials for a compound and blast them with energy, you might get a compound with those materials in them. Life is far more complicated than that.

Consider the evolving from a common ancestor with the apes thing. We're 98% genetically similar. Again that makes sense considering we have many of the same physical features. I mean, we're 60% genetically similar with a mouse.

So 2% difference. Thats 60 million base pairs in the genome. So in the run of 4 million years we would have incurred 60 million mutations, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM would had to have provided a competitive advantage. Considering higher level mammals have backup mechanisms, so mutations are rare, and beneficial mutations are like gold, diamonds, and platinum, you might consider that the odds of it happening on its own are slim to none.

Much like the creation of life. We have yet to prove spontaneous generation is even possible, yet its consistently put in science textbooks. Experiments at spontaneous generation have failed miserably every time yet, but science clings to it. That sounds like blind faith to me. How unscientific.

To illustrate my point:

http://mcdermott.chem.columbia.edu/biophys_2002/spartan/glycine.jpg

This is an amino acid. Real complicated stuff there.

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2000_Groups/Blood_Substitutes/hemoglobin.gif

This is a protein. Its made of thousands of amino acids, all in the proper order, and with the proper charge to give it an active site, a water soluble region, and a lipid soluble region. One wrong amino acid can cause a bad mutation (this is hemoglobin, so a wrong amino acid causes sickle cell anemia).

http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/bacteriacell.jpg

This is a cell. The is what the first life would have looked like. I used a bacteria cell, because animal cells are far more complicated but didn't come first. Even so, this thing is made of hundreds of thousands of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates. Each one has a particular function.

So according to scientists, they're able to make an amino acid (picture one), so therefore spontaneous generation of a cell (picture three) is possible. Yeah, no leap in logic there. It's like saying that the materials that make bricks can form naturally, so therefore given enough time a house could spontaneously generate.

Tydeus

01-12-2007, 09:20 AM

Well, see, this is difficult, because basically we have a contest over facts at the moment. An "it is true" vs. "no its not" kind of thing.

I guess my two cents regarding abiogenesis --

It's a big goddamn universe. Really, really fucking big.

Earth, at the time at which primitive life was supposed to have arisen, had oceans, but the atmosphere was not yet as thick as it is today. So, we had more radiation/cosmic rays coming down to the surface, and penetrating into the water. Every single body of water on earth with adequate depth would have achieved a sort of "sweet spot" with regard to radiation levels. Just enough to stir the primordial soup, but not too much to immediately destroy any new creation. So, all over earth, there will billions and billions of reactions occuring every day, for millions upon millions of years. Sure abiogenesis may be really fucking improbable, but if you roll the dice enough times...

And then there's the whole "huge fucking universe" thing. Earth is this structure that's quite good at "rolling the dice" many times, very quickly. And, then there's billions of earth-like planets in this galaxy alone (estimated). And there's a shitload of galaxies just in our own cluster, and there are billions of clusters....

So, basically, no matter what the odds are, unless it's actually impossible, it would've happened.

So according to scientists, they're able to make an amino acid (picture one), so therefore spontaneous generation of a cell (picture three) is possible. Yeah, no leap in logic there. It's like saying that the materials that make bricks can form naturally, so therefore given enough time a house could spontaneously generate.

Well, first of all, I've got some responses to make to other things said in your post, but, yeah. A house could spontaneously generate. Hell, the Roman Forum could spontaneously generate. Really, really unlikely, but hey, it's a big goddamn universe.

And of course it's going to seem all very unlikely to us -- why here? and all that business. But, of course, it happened here, because we're here. We're not going to be existing on some world that didn't roll the dice and get lucky! We'll exist on the world that has all the ridiculous-seeming improbabilities all compiled, because that's only where we could exist. It's not a hugely satisfying argument, but it makes a lot of sense. Why is the universe tuned that way it is? Because we live here. And we aren't going to live in a universe in which basic constants would prevent the formation of atoms.

But, I think there are a few other flaws in what you posted.

This is a protein. Its made of thousands of amino acids, all in the proper order, and with the proper charge to give it an active site, a water soluble region, and a lipid soluble region. One wrong amino acid can cause a bad mutation (this is hemoglobin, so a wrong amino acid causes sickle cell anemia).

More primitive life forms often have less complicated proteins. Viruses, for example (well, they're not really alive, but you know, work with me), often feature somewhat less-complicated proteins. Neuraminidase (sp?) is damn complicated, but not as complicated as hemoglobin And, after all, something that doesn't even metabolize doesn't really require hemoglobin, now does it?

Further, regarding "One wrong amino acid can cause a bad mutation." Again, we're talking about in a highly evolved creature. Again, to return to neuraminidase and hemagglutinin -- influenza undergoes all sorts of mutations every year, and every year, their hemagglutinin and neuraminidase structures are slightly different. Sometimes, the difference can be by dozens of amino acids. And yet, this can lead to new hosts, pandemic outbreaks, and all the like. One minor mutation is not so harmful to such a primitive proto life form.

Imagine even earlier, when "life" didn't metabolize, or necessarily even have DNA/RNA as we know it today, or come in cellular form. It's not like amino acids organized into a cell, or something. First into primitive, simple proteins, which in turned organized together into something more complex, and so on and so forth.

Believe me -- I do understand the impulse to irreduceable complexity. I'm not even a microbiologist, but just learning about something so essential, like the Krebs cycle or photosynthesis, sometimes makes you want to go "someone had to come up with this shit." But, you just have to think about all the supposed steps, right from the damn beginning, and it doesn't seem so implausible after all.

I mean, this is all really just a re-hash of early evolutionary debate and the eyeball. How could something so complex have occured randomly? asked the skeptics, as I'm sure you already know, Sword (so let me say now that most of this post is to assert my understanding, and I'm sure I'll be corrected many times, acheiving my meta-purpose of debate, and also I'm posting for the benefit of others. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, expert that you are, and a valuable memeber to have in such a debate).

And so a progression was thought up, starting with mere patches of photoreceptive cells, capable only of determining light or dark, and without much gradation -- much like the "eyes" found on flukes. And so it evolved from there. Millions upon millions of base pairs may have needed to change, but we're talking about millions upon millions of organisms, each rolling its genetic dice millions upon millions of times, all repeated over the course of millions of millions of years.

Early "life" would have been less alive than viruses, and simpler, and more open to the benefits of mutation thereby.

To return to the beginning:

This is a cell. The is what the first life would have looked like. I used a bacteria cell, because animal cells are far more complicated but didn't come first. Even so, this thing is made of hundreds of thousands of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates. Each one has a particular function.

This is basically what I've been taking issue with (how characteristic of me to put it at the end of a book-length post). You're asserting that scientists assert that something as compex as a complete, modern prokaryotic cell spontaneously generated, when what I've always read and heard (and thought) is not that minerals could spontaneously form into bricks, and so then a house, but that bricks could form spontaneously, and bricks could form into walls and chimneys and foundations, and these could then form a house.

It's not like we went from soup --> modern life. We went from soup --> sorta, kinda reproductive soup. Ish. --> slightly more reproductive soup still, --> etc.

Anyway, that's always been my understanding.

Fifthfiend

01-12-2007, 09:31 AM

Well, see, this is difficult, because basically we have a contest over facts at the moment. An "it is true" vs. "no its not" kind of thing.

Yet another in an occasional series of "Why no sane human being would ever want to be responsible for moderating this discussion."

Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and China

Uh, the Nazis were Christian.

Also doesn't North Korea worship its wacky-ass dictator or some crazy shit like that?

notasfatasmike

01-12-2007, 09:51 AM

Uh, the Nazis were Christian.

Without reinvolving myself in the actual religious debate, um, no, they weren't. Hitler did use a lot of Christian rhetoric in his speechs, but many private statements culled from his unpublished writing and from statements made by his associates indicate that he was simply using Christianity to further his own goals. This is where the confusion on this issue commonly comes from - if you just take his speeches at face value, he does seem to be using Christianity as one of his talking points, but if you study the behind the scenes story, you'll see that even if Hitler did believe in the Christian god and in Jesus, his beliefs on them were so wacked out (surprise surprise) as to be unrecognizable.

As for the other Nazi leaders, most of them had their roots either in secular thought or in obscure non-Christian religions. To say that the Nazis were Christians is just factually inaccurate. It's a commonly used anti-religious talking point that, ironically, I'm sick of hearing as someone who cares about an accurate teaching of German history, not as a Christian. (Not that I'm claiming that you're using as an anti-religious talking point, Fifth; I'm just mentioning the context I usually see it in.)

The Nazis were just shitty human beings on their own merits, regardless of their religion or other beliefs or whatever. But I suppose that's neither here nor there for this thread, so I'll stop talking now.

Sithdarth

01-12-2007, 09:59 AM

This is basically what I've been taking issue with (how characteristic of me to put it at the end of a book-length post). You're asserting that scientists assert that something as compex as a complete, modern prokaryotic cell spontaneously generated, when what I've always read and heard (and thought) is not that minerals could spontaneously form into bricks, and so then a house, but that bricks could form spontaneously, and bricks could form into walls and chimneys and foundations, and these could then form a house.

Hell a virus can't even really be called a cell in any normal sense of the word. If you want to go even further there exist Prions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion). These things are pretty much just molecules that self-replicate. Oh and this research (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/9f57c4522fa84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/3.html) kind of shows how life could have gone from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate.

Life is really tricky in that we really don't have a definition of it. Viruses are missing a couple of the key "indicators" for life and yet are generally considered alive. Prions replicate by themselves and debate has yet to settle their status. Generally it seems the more we know about biology the fuzzier the boundary between living and not living gets.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-12-2007, 10:10 AM

So, basically, no matter what the odds are, unless it's actually impossible, it would've happened.

Indeed. If it is actually possible, it would have happened. I think to go from amino acid to full grown human being would take a hell of a lot longer than the 4 billion years they say we had without outside influence, but thats just me.

The point I'm trying to make, however, is that we don't even know that it IS possible. Being able to spontaneously produce an amino acid is a far cry from evidencing it can actually go any further. Therefore the whole concept of abiogenesis is based on a premise that has no evidence or experiment to back it up whatsoever.

When looking at it like that, believing in abiogenesis requires as much faith as believing in God. It might not be wrong. But science doesn't deal with faith. It deals with fact and observation, none of which is observed. In fact all evidence we have suggests what we commonly refer to as the Law of Biogenesis, that life can ONLY come from life. I'm sure you can see where I get the point that the only reason abiogenesis is taught is because many dearly-loved scientific theories collapse without it.

Also, you're right, hemoglobin is not a prokaryotic protein. I wasn't trying to imply that it was, I was merely mentioning that the particular picture I was using was that of hemoglobin. Pictures of prokaryotic proteins wouldn't look extremely different, however, and they would still need functional domains.

I don't know where you learned that the first life was less complicated than modern bacteria, however. It's theorized that the first organisms were a type of archaebacteria (blue green algae), and they're pretty damn complex. Viruses are less complex, but still require a nucleic acid and a protein, but they aren't self replicating. Evolutionary theory states that viruses came after bacteria, not before, because viruses require bacteria in order to reproduce as well as that the proteins expressed by their genes are quite complex compared to that of simple bacteria.

You brought up another point too, which is quite true, but damages the current concept of evolution more than what it helps. You said that mutations are more common and less damaging in lower forms of organisms. That is true. Yet if you consider the ladder of evolution, it took a billion years to go from a simple bacteria to a really complex one. It took another billion years to become a eukaryote. Another half a billion years after that to become a multicellular eukaryote. But then if you look at the last 100 million years, the change in creatures have become more complicated, larger in scale, and at a faster rate all the while being less likely to occur. The fast mutation rate of bacteria is true, though even with that extremely fast mutation rate we haven't seen true speciation with it. But how did we somehow manage to get 60 million beneficial mutations in the past 4 million years? Thats 15 positive mutations per year, all in the same ancestry!!! In a creature as complicated as a primate, and without the availability of the argument of billions of primates, the odds are inescapably low. Granted, its possible, but not in the time frame without outside influences.

It should also be noted that there haven't been any recorded instances of a progressive mutation (one that improves a species). We've seen sideways mutations, and regressive ones, but never a progressive mutation. Again, science requires something that has never actually be tested or observed to be true. I'm not denying the existence of evolution, or the fossil record. But I will say the current concept of evolution and the fossil record do a lot more to support intelligent design in my mind than it does to discredit it.

And to believe that it was all purely random and natural selection takes a whole of a lot of faith, because there's sure no empirical evidence to back it up.

Hell a virus can't even really be called a cell in any normal sense of the word. If you want to go even further there exist Prions. These things are pretty much just molecules that self-replicate. Oh and this research kind of shows how life could have gone from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate.

Again, prions are not 'self-replicating'. They need to hijack the system of a living cell in order to replicate, hence why they are infectious. They cannot do so on their own. Most scientists think that both prions and viruses and viroids all evolved after life did, not before, so they aren't a stepping stone.

And seriously? The guy makes a genome using enzymes and bases essentially CREATED for him by OTHER ORGANISMS, and you think that supports spontaneous generation? The polymerase used came from a bacteria, the nucleotides used came from a yeast, the lipids used would have come from another organism. This isn't a spontaneous generation, its a chimera. And he can't even get it to work right. There is no evidence here.

Fifthfiend

01-12-2007, 10:15 AM

Hitler did use a lot of Christian rhetoric in his speechs, but many private statements culled from his unpublished writing and from statements made by his associates indicate that he was simply using Christianity to further his own goals. This is where the confusion on this issue commonly comes from - if you just take his speeches at face value, he does seem to be using Christianity as one of his talking points, but if you study the behind the scenes story, you'll see that even if Hitler did believe in the Christian god and in Jesus, his beliefs on them were so wacked out (surprise surprise) as to be unrecognizable.

As for the other Nazi leaders, most of them had their roots either in secular thought or in obscure non-Christian religions. To say that the Nazis were Christians is just factually inaccurate.

That the Nazis were crazy, hypocritical Christians hardly disproves that they were Christians. I mean I'm not sitting here arguing Soviet Russia wasn't atheistic just cause they had a really crazy-ass version of atheism going.

And it's not like a a lot of say, Catholicism, doesn't have its roots either in secular thought or in obscure non-Christian religions.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-12-2007, 10:21 AM

Azisien

01-12-2007, 10:29 AM

Sword, I have to say, for a molecular biologist going for his PhD, you're really looking at evolution, something you should be at least moderately versed in, from a highly random and linear perspective.

I haven't checked up on abiogenesis stuff lately, I think they've gone beyond amino acids by now, into proteins, fragments of DNA, RNA, etc. I'd have to hunt that down, I think it involved the energy impacts of meteorites driving the reactions.

As Sword said though, of course even bunches of proteins and RNA and DNA isn't "proof" of abiogenesis, but it does show these reactions can happen, that something doesn't have to come from nothing, so to speak.

I think a matter of scale is getting in the way here. It always does, and it does for me, I definitely don't claim to be above it. We're all, what, under 30 years old? We can all trace our family trees, what, MAYBE 1000 years back if you're lucky?

Lacking total recall, I can't really even remember my entire life of only 20 years. How the hell am I supposed to imagine 400 million years? The absolute age of the Earth is still somewhat flexible, that's because the older something is, the more uncertainty accumulates. But given current evidence, life DID arise in its primitive forms (bacteria or bacteria-like) "quickly." I put it in quotations because I say quickly GEOLOGICALLY.

Anyway, I could continue summarizing entire university courses, but really this is stuff everyone needs to learn without reading an Internet forum. Learn it properly.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-12-2007, 10:49 AM

Sword, I have to say, for a molecular biologist going for his PhD, you're really looking at evolution, something you should be at least moderately versed in, from a highly random and linear perspective.

Yep. I also did an minor in philosophy in my undergraduate degree. And did two courses, Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Biology, that did large sections on evolution.

And abiogenesis is not evolution. Don't confuse the two concepts. Evolution DEFINITELY exists. The world is dynamic, and life must definitely evolve and adapt. Natural selection occurs. The organism that is fittest to reproduce passes on its genes.

I actually have quite a good understanding of evolution. However, there are many gaps... MANY gaps... that are simply explained by theories such as abiogenesis which have no scientific or empirical basis. Therefore, belief in those theories ARE faith, not empirical or logical or scientific.

I believe in the aspects of evolution that have been shown to be true. You will not see me arguing the earth is 6000 years old. However, for the aspects that haven't been proven, belief in God fills in those gaps just as well as the beliefs that atheistic scientists have. Believe it or not, every molecular biologist in my department believes in God in some form or another.

After taking the personal experience into account, I'm more likely to believe God exists because I've felt it. Therefore, those gaps in evolutionary theory are tidily fixed by incorporating the concepts of God and Creation with Evolution. They work much better together, and explain the gaps in each other, than they do alone.

And as for my view of pure evolution being random, what do you suppose the atheist concept of evolution is? Directed evolution?

I haven't checked up on abiogenesis stuff lately, I think they've gone beyond amino acids by now, into proteins, fragments of DNA, RNA, etc. I'd have to hunt that down, I think it involved the energy impacts of meteorites driving the reactions.

Pretty sure they haven't. Ribose, the sugar that makes up the backbone of DNA and RNA, has been shown time and time again to be only formed by enzymes. And those papers that say they've formed protein fragments... they're talking about amino acids. And I find it amusing that they decided energy impacts of meteorites driving the reactions. They're using a premise with no proof to try and prove a premise with no proof. It can't hold up.

Tydeus

01-12-2007, 10:56 AM

When looking at it like that, believing in abiogenesis requires as much faith as believing in God. It might not be wrong. But science doesn't deal with faith. It deals with fact and observation, none of which is observed. In fact all evidence we have suggests what we commonly refer to as the Law of Biogenesis, that life can ONLY come from life. I'm sure you can see where I get the point that the only reason abiogenesis is taught is because many dearly-loved scientific theories collapse without it.

Well, I think it takes slightly less faith. Basically, it's like believing in "imaginary time" or a multiverse, or a universe that imploded and then turned into ours, or whatever else. We may never know, and currently have no damn idea if any of these are anywhere approaching correct, but they do fit within our understanding of the universe today. God can be a rather contrary thing. Outside of time, infinite being, etc. etc. Not that it's impossible (I guess, according to the people who sure seemed to know a whole hell of a lot more about physics on this forum than I do), but that it would require a lot of re-working of our basic understanding of the universe.

This is not to say that we should try to preserve our understanding as it is, necessarily, but that we ought to just continue with our current understanding until contrary evidence shows up in great enough quantities. While believing that God created the universe or that we live in a universe within a multiverse may be equally unproven, God's existence would require a massive re-thinking of many, many scientific principles. So, while believing in a godless Creation requires faith, in a way, at least it requires the smallest leap of faith possible. It meshes with what we have recorded and experimented and proven.

Also, you're right, hemoglobin is not a prokaryotic protein. I wasn't trying to imply that it was, I was merely mentioning that the particular picture I was using was that of hemoglobin. Pictures of prokaryotic proteins wouldn't look extremely different, however, and they would still need functional domains.

Granted, but I was talking about things even simpler than that. I didn't think you were implying hemoglobin is prokaryotic -- merely that it was a poor choice of protein when speaking of the pre-cellular primordial soup at the time of abiogenesis.

I don't know where you learned that the first life was less complicated than modern bacteria, however. It's theorized that the first organisms were a type of archaebacteria (blue green algae), and they're pretty damn complex.

Well, yes, the first true life forms were archaebacteria, or so I've been taught. But, I was just saying that life-like entities, similar perhaps to viruses (or as Sithdarth mentioned, prions) would have preceeded archaebacteria, as a bridge from amino acid to archaebacteria.

Viruses are less complex, but still require a nucleic acid and a protein, but they aren't self replicating. Evolutionary theory states that viruses came after bacteria, not before, because viruses require bacteria in order to reproduce as well as that the proteins expressed by their genes are quite complex compared to that of simple bacteria.

Well, see, now I've learned something! :D

Anyway, what I was trying to say, I guess, was that primitive entities may have existed that weren't technically alive, but may have preceeded and promoted the creation of life. Take prions (although I'm no longer saying that they existed prior to cellular life, but just as an example of a "could have") -- they don't self-replicate, but they do attach to other, normally-folded proteins, and change them into the prion form. If you've got a crapload of primitive proteins floating about, and this one kind of protein has a tendency to turn others into copies of itself, that's a way of introducing order via energy input into the system.

And really, that's what it all comes down to -- introducing order into the system by aid of energy input. The energy was there; it's just a matter of how it got translated into order. (Or if, I guess)

You brought up another point too, which is quite true, but damages the current concept of evolution more than what it helps. You said that mutations are more common and less damaging in lower forms of organisms. That is true. Yet if you consider the ladder of evolution, it took a billion years to go from a simple bacteria to a really complex one. It took another billion years to become a eukaryote. Another half a billion years after that to become a multicellular eukaryote. But then if you look at the last 100 million years, the change in creatures have become more complicated, larger in scale, and at a faster rate all the while being less likely to occur. The fast mutation rate of bacteria is true, though even with that extremely fast mutation rate we haven't seen true speciation with it. But how did we somehow manage to get 60 million beneficial mutations in the past 4 million years?

Well, they need not all be beneficial -- merely not harmful. Obviously some have to be beneficial, but not all. It's all about the net outcome, right?

And, really, think about going from prokaryote to eukaryote -- that's really a much bigger step than going from "really hairy, kinda smart, kinda bipedal mammal" to "less hairy, really smart, totally bipedal mammal." I mean, prokaryote to eukaryote is a big change, and so is single-celled to multicellular. Comparatively, that'd be like going from soup-in-a-bag ape ancestors to organ-filled (delicious organs!) human beings. I mean, the whole no-organelles to organelles transition is pretty huge. And so is the idea of multicellular organisms, in which cells depend on each other for survival and differentiate. It's like technology, kind of. Took us 100,000 years to get farming, but once we got the possibilty for differentiation of societal roles, specialization increased exponentially.

In the one-to-two billion years since multicellular organisms appeared, there's yet to be another jump in evolution of that same scale. So, really, it still fits the model. Especially since we don't even see any signs that a jump of that nature may happen anytime soon. It's just been refinements of the same basic idea. Prokaryote -- > eukaryote was a paradigm shift, and so was single cell --> multi cell. Austrolepithecus (sp?) Afarensis --> Homo Sapien is just a refinement of very similar ideas.

Thats 15 positive mutations per year, all in the same ancestry!!! In a creature as complicated as a primate, and without the availability of the argument of billions of primates, the odds are inescapably low. Granted, its possible, but not in the time frame without outside influences.

Again, not all the mutations would have to be positive, right? Just a net total?

It should also be noted that there haven't been any recorded instances of a progressive mutation (one that improves a species). We've seen sideways mutations, and regressive ones, but never a progressive mutation.

Really? What about drug resistance? What about Moths on birch trees (You know that classic, right?)? What about the few lucky people who seem to be basically immune to HIV?

We just seem to have settled into something of a nice niche -- there's yet to be really devastating, mass-extinction-scale environmental pressures on most of the aforementioned species to actually make such traits into the kind of traits that dictate the future of the species.

Again, science requires something that has never actually be tested or observed to be true. I'm not denying the existence of evolution, or the fossil record. But I will say the current concept of evolution and the fossil record do a lot more to support intelligent design in my mind than it does to discredit it.

But, again, the idea of God overturns a lot of science, not just evolution. So, while both ideas may have problems, at least one does not conflict with what we are confident of.

And to believe that it was all purely random and natural selection takes a whole of a lot of faith, because there's sure no empirical evidence to back it up.

None? Isn't that an exaggeration?

Again, prions are not 'self-replicating'. They need to hijack the system of a living cell in order to replicate, hence why they are infectious. They cannot do so on their own. Most scientists think that both prions and viruses and viroids all evolved after life did, not before, so they aren't a stepping stone.

addressed above.

Azisien

01-12-2007, 11:01 AM

It's actually logical inference, it's not "no proof." They were experiments, not just "hey, I betcha meteorites did this!" over two scientists having lunch at Burger King. They measured the energetic and physical impact of a meteorite, and they made a "smasher" to mimic the effects.

Mirror the possible cause, analyze the results, infer. That's different from "taking it on faith."

However, there are many gaps... MANY gaps... that are simply explained by theories such as abiogenesis which have no scientific or empirical basis. Therefore, belief in those theories ARE faith, not empirical or logical or scientific.

Well I think we can agree here. There are mountainous amounts of evidence for parts of evolution, but yes there are gaps. It is a young science, however, and it will grow with time. You're right, in some cases there is a great deal of conjecture and speculation. I think these concepts ARE worth mentioning, even in a science class, but they should be labelled as unknowns. In my science textbooks, they were, so I don't see the problem. I already addressed the inference stuff, so I won't go over that again.

P.S. Dang, Sword, we seem to have incredibly similar academic paths at this point. :D (I'm also taking a minor in Philosophy)

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-12-2007, 11:38 AM

Really? What about drug resistance? What about Moths on birch trees (You know that classic, right?)? What about the few lucky people who seem to be basically immune to HIV?

Ah yes, the classic peppermoth example. It is indeed a fine example of natural selection, but not so much in progressive evolution. You're basically looking at two phenotypes, a black and a white moth. With the soot on the trees, the black phenotype (which had tended to be the fewer numbers) gained a temporary advantage. Once the soot was cleaned off, the white regained their advantage and became more numerous. However, both phenotypes existed in the population before and after the environmental pressures were placed. It illustrates very well how a species is capable of adapting to a dynamic environment, but its not really a progressive mutation. It's really more or less tweaking something you already have to fit the situation (what I called a sideways mutation).

Drug resistance, while a bit more complicated, is similar in nature and something I'm quite prepared to answer. And its actually what my thesis is on. I'm working on a drug (anti-parasite) called emamectin benzoate which targets the glutamate-gated chloride channels (a unique receptor to nematodes and arthropods) and mapping out its mechanism of action and potential models of resistance in lice (yum). Drugs target a receptor located somewhere in the organism and use it to kill the organism. My drug, EMB, forces the channel to be open to cause an influx of chloride ions which halt neuromuscular junctions from functioning, thereby leading to paralysis and eventual starvation (cruel, no?). The main mechanism of resistance, as far as I know yet I'm only finishing up my first year in the program, is either a loss or a dysfunctional form of that particular receptor. The drug, therefore, cannot bind, giving the organism a competitive advantage in the presence of the drug. Natural selection takes it courses, and much like the moths, eventually the drug-resistant phenotype outnumbers the wild-type. So we stop using the drug. And then what happens? Those receptors have a normal physiological role, and once the environmental pressure is no longer there, the drug-resistant phenotype becomes the disadvantages organism. Eventually, the population will swing back towards the wild-type. Perfect example? Malaria was commonly treated by quinine, but then switched to more efficacious synthetic drugs after resistance developed. Now, malaria is resistance to those synthetic drugs, but is once again sensitive to quinine. Again, its not really a progressive mutation.

As for those lucky HIV-resistant guys, I'd have to know more about what makes the resistant and whether or not its an evolutionary adaptation before I could say more.

P.S. Dang, Sword, we seem to have incredibly similar academic paths at this point. (I'm also taking a minor in Philosophy)

Cool. :) At least you won't have to deal with constant debates with your atheist philosophy prof (though we actually got along really well. He liked how I presented my arguments). I also ended up taking Biomedical Ethics from a feminist... enough said...

It all comes down to this point: nothing in science, and nothing on this forum, has been able to prove my worldview wrong or discredit it to the point where I'm forced to change my mind. My views on some things have changed over time, and I'm sure will continue to change, but it's perfectly possible to have a scientific, logical, nature and still believe in God. My best rationalization for why it would be God and not the other possibilities done by science is personal experience, which is not something I can prove to anybody except myself. I'm going to have to stop for the weekend now, because I have some work to do, and I generally don't post on weekends, but I hope I've been at least informative and that people can realize that there's the slightest possibility that my view might indeed be right. If so, then I think I've done a good job. Laters.

Ryanderman

01-12-2007, 12:17 PM

Please, correct me if I'm worng or if this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that we have never actually observed evolution when it involves a gain in information. By information, I mean the gentic code in the DNA. In order for evolution to have occured as scientists assert it did, there would have had to be an increase in the complexity of DNA over time. That has not be observed as of yet.

There have been the classic examples of the moths and the drug resistance and so on, but all of those instances of evolution involved an adaption within a species using genetic information that had already existed within that species. Nowhere have we observed a gain in information. All observed mutation have corrupted the DNA in which they occured, rending that section unuseable. Sometimes this proved advantageous to the species, but it still resulted in a loss of useable genetic information. Natural selection breeds in advantageous traits, and breeds out disadvantageous ones. All the advantageous traits already existed within the population, but the disadvantagoues ones will disappear - again resulting in a loss of gentic information.

It may seems like we have observed progressive mutations, but so far they've only been regressive mutations that happened to have a progressive effect. And that's fine as far as the microevolution of a species adapting to its environment goes, but it doesn't work for macroevolution.

notasfatasmike

01-12-2007, 12:51 PM

That the Nazis were crazy, hypocritical Christians hardly disproves that they were Christians. I mean I'm not sitting here arguing Soviet Russia wasn't atheistic just cause they had a really crazy-ass version of atheism going.

And it's not like a a lot of say, Catholicism, doesn't have its roots either in secular thought or in obscure non-Christian religions.
See, but here's the thing: the vast majority of Nazi leaders were not Christian. Hence, saying the Nazi were Christians does not follow.

If you're talking about the average, everyday soldier, well, then, duh the Nazis were Christians; Christianity was the dominant religion of Germany at that period of time. That does nothing to prove the point that somehow Christianity influenced National-Socialist thought; that would be completely out of order.

Hitler seems to have believed in a God, probably even the Abrahamic god, but in his writing it's often unclear whether or not you could classify him as a Christian, because he had a lot of problems with Christianity as a whole. He mostly used it to justify himself to the populace, who were, as previously mentioned predominantely Christian. (And also to draw comparisons to the Holy Roman Empire, but discussing that would drag this even further off-topic.)

This is the distinction I'm trying to draw: claiming that National-Socialist beliefs *came out of* Christianity is disingenuous and runs contrary to how they actually developed. It's trying to make religion the main scapegoat of something where, in reality, it's barely a footnote. I don't know if we want to keep this tangent going, but that's the point I'm trying to make.

Demetrius

01-12-2007, 01:28 PM

Hitler seems to have believed in a God, probably even the Abrahamic god, but in his writing it's often unclear whether or not you could classify him as a Christian, because he had a lot of problems with Christianity as a whole. He mostly used it to justify himself to the populace, who were, as previously mentioned predominantely Christian.

Seems kind of similar to a certain other leader just who was just hung, except he used Islam.

notasfatasmike

01-12-2007, 01:33 PM

Seems kind of similar to a certain other leader just who was just hung, except he used Islam.
Hey, no argument here.

Archbio

01-12-2007, 03:20 PM

I_Like_Swordchucks,

And you do realize they also believed in the occult and mysticism and threw all the Christians in concentration camps as well, right? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere before that Hitler stated that there was no God... could be wrong.

That's sounds so very, very wrong.

Notasfatasmike,

See, but here's the thing: the vast majority of Nazi leaders were not Christian. Hence, saying the Nazi were Christians does not follow.

The tangent came up when someone said the Third Reich was "an atheist country". It follows even less. Your objection about Nazi history being misrepresented would have been less dubious there. The claim that the Third Reich was "atheist" is also frequent.

The question of nazi religion is a complex one. There is at some point the appearance of trying to establish a cult with multiple levels for different classes.

Of course, that implies a very cynical use of religion, but I don't know since when the Third Reich is considered to be composed only of the Nazi leaders: what the population, which wasn't that uninvolved, believed matters.

You'd have a hard time demonstrating that the strong anti-semitist feelings that the Nazis used weren't the same vehiculated by christianity in Europe, and the Axis countries had, at the very least, ambiguous relationships with the Church.

Religion (in various form) isn't a footnote on this topic, and implying that the Third Reich was at equivalent distance between atheism and religion(s) is not being objective, to say the least.

I don't think this means this much about religion in general or even christianity in particular (I'm not going for anything like "christianity = national-socialism" or even "national-socialism=christianity"), but this isn't off-topic.

Edit: Before someone brings it up, Nazi belief in pseudo-sciences and the horrors Nazi science doesn't bring them in line with anything that you could call an atheist ideology as much as their composite religion brings them in line with christianity.

notasfatasmike

01-12-2007, 05:22 PM

That's sounds so very, very wrong.

And it is very wrong. There are some who claim that some Nazi leaders believed in the occult, although depending on the source they either worked with it or fought against it. Most of the research on that particular topic is sketchy, at best.

The tangent came up when someone said the Third Reich was "an atheist country". It follows even less. Your objection about Nazi history being misrepresented would have been less dubious there. The claim that the Third Reich was "atheist" is also frequent.
Yeah, that's also an incorrect statement. I wouldn't say it "follows even less," but it is also incorrect.

The question of nazi religion is a complex one. There is at some point the appearance of trying to establish a cult with multiple levels for different classes.

Of course, that implies a very cynical use of religion, but I don't know since when the Third Reich is considered to be composed only of the Nazi leaders: what the population, which wasn't that uninvolved, believed matters.

Do you guys want the big time German major history lesson? Well, I hope so.

It's not just an "appearance" of establishing a cult - in Hitler's personal writing he flat out states that that was his goal: to create a pseudo-religious cult (a cult of personality, if you will) centered around himself.

You see, Hitler was an obsessive student of German history. He was particularly interested in the Holy Roman Empire. His goal was, essentially to recreate it - this where the term "Third Reich" comes from. (HRE was the second; the first is escaping me right now and I don't have any of my literature.) However, in place of Christianity, he wanted to place himself as the head of a new religion (so to speak - this isn't a religion in the strictest sense of the word, remember) that would hold said empire together, as he believed Christianity had done for the HRE. (Which is a questionable argument, but is that really surprising?) But given that he was located in the remnants of the HRE, it was dominated by a Christian population, so the first "phase", so to speak, was unifying that population through a trait they more or less already shared, i.e. Christianity.

So that's a big part of my objection to claiming Hitler was a "Christian" leader - he was pretty blatantly using it as a tool to control his population. And I'm aware that that's a negative trait of organized religion - I've never argued to the contrary. But that's not what we're talking about here.

You'd have a hard time demonstrating that the strong anti-semitist feelings that the Nazis used weren't the same vehiculated by christianity in Europe, and the Axis countries had, at the very least, ambiguous relationships with the Church.

I would have a hard time demonstrating that, as it's a negative and hence I am incapable of proving it.

As far as the Axis powers relation with the church, it was actually fairly unambiguous: they were in complete control of it. What, did you forget we were talking about a facist regime here? To be a broken record, again: the Nazis were *using* religion to gain favor with the populace. It's not like any Christians who disagreed with the Nazis could have openly spoken out about it. (And actually, many Christians were involved in the underground resistance movements; I do not intend this to be a counter-argument, but it is a fact.)

Religion (in various form) isn't a footnote on this topic, and implying that the Third Reich was at equivalent distance between atheism and religion(s) is not being objective, to say the least.

I don't think this means this much about religion in general or even christianity in particular (I'm not going for anything like "christianity = national-socialism" or even "national-socialism=christianity"), but this isn't off-topic.

Edit: Before someone brings it up, Nazi belief in pseudo-sciences and the horrors Nazi science doesn't bring them in line with anything that you could call an atheist ideology as much as their composite religion brings them in line with christianity.
Your last three paragraphs make little sense to me, no offense intended. It's something about the way they are structured that's confusing me. I am being objective on this, despite your assertations - the Nazis and their idealogy are far and away a product of history and not of religion. This is made clear in the writing of the major participants of that particular movement. I'm sorry you feel otherwise, but it is a matter of objective fact. You're trying to bring something into the equation that, realistically speaking, wasn't really a part of it.

The off-topic paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.

What "composite religion" are you talking about? They controlled religion because they were facists, but that should hardly come as a surprise.

ZAKtheGeek

01-12-2007, 05:41 PM

You're all excellent debaters, by the way, not that I'm one to rank anyone else. It's what puts this forum above others.
Amen. ;)

This is a cell. The is what the first life would have looked like. I used a bacteria cell, because animal cells are far more complicated but didn't come first. Even so, this thing is made of hundreds of thousands of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates. Each one has a particular function.
And it's obviously too complex to have sprung up from its basic fragments. I mean, even DNA is too complex to have spontaneously arose. There could be an earlier form, one which may or may not be considered life. It seems to me like, at its core, all life is an engine for producing ATP. Some molecules produce ATP from ADP and phosphates, then that ATP gives the cells the energy to do it again. Maybe the precursor to life was something like that.

Archbio

01-12-2007, 05:44 PM

And it is very wrong. There are some who claim that some Nazi leaders believed in the occult, although depending on the source they either worked with it or fought against it. Most of the research on that particular topic is sketchy, at best.

I was mostly objecting to the other two statements, but yes the occult angle has been overplayed. It was there, though, and it lines up with the taste for pseudo-sciences in general.

It's not just an "appearance" of establishing a cult

The operative term isn't "cult", but "multiple level". I'll add more to this below.

this where the term "Third Reich" comes from. (HRE was the second; the first is escaping me right now and I don't have any of my literature.)

You've got it backwards, the HRE was the first Reich (in the nazi historiography, at least), the second was the monarchy abolished in 1918 and the third is Hitler's.

So that's a big part of my objection to claiming Hitler was a "Christian" leader - he was pretty blatantly using it as a tool to control his population. And I'm aware that that's a negative trait of organized religion - I've never argued to the contrary. But that's not what we're talking about here.

We're pretty much in agreement there. The characteristics I tried to bring out in my previous, hurried post underline just how cynical the exercice was. Still, Hitler used christianity to lead and himself held personal religious beliefs that owe some of their parentage to christianity, as you said yourself.

So "Hitler was a christian leader" doesn't seem all that aberrant a statement, even if it lacks tremendously in nuance.

I would have a hard time demonstrating that, as it's a negative and hence I am incapable of proving it.

Point taken. What I meant to imply is that the reverse is amply demonstrated. It's not something I'm that happy to bring up.

As far as the Axis powers relation with the church, it was actually fairly unambiguous: they were in complete control of it.

They were in complete control of the Catholic Church? That's somewhat surprising, from what I recall.

Your last three paragraphs make little sense to me, no offense intended. It's something about the way they are structured that's confusing me.

Again, I apologize, my post was more hurried than usual.

I am being objective on this, despite your assertations - the Nazis and their idealogy are far and away a product of history and not of religion. This is made clear in the writing of the major participants of that particular movement. I'm sorry you feel otherwise, but it is a matter of objective fact.

Maybe my paragraph wasn't clear, but I've stated what I thought wasn't objective in what I thought your position implied. I'm still not convinced. It's not an extraordinary claim that the Third Reich as a whole as more in common with christianity than with atheism. Yet, you won't say that. Secondly, I find it odd that you would speak as thought something being a product of history and something being a product of religion are incompatible propositions, especially considering more ancient religions (including traditions the nazis pulled from) have more ambiguous relationships with history.

Likewise, that "Hitlerism" was meant to be central to the Third Reich isn't incompatible with religion remaining important as a tool and as a building block. Pseudo and quasi religions are closer to "real" religions than to atheism in the non-religious sense.

The off-topic paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.

I was commenting, or trying to comment, on this tangent as a whole. It deals with religion, so it's not off-topic.

What "composite religion" are you talking about?

I'm referring to what I had mentionned earlier. A multi-level cult: substantial differences in the cults that are designed for the masses, for the party, and so on. It wasn't a novel idea, and the vague notion of the general population being christians while Nazi leaders were pagan occultists is apparented to that. I'm going to have to look it up, but since this isn't really an argument that's part of my rebuttal of another argument, I think you can forgive the delay.

ZAKtheGeek

01-12-2007, 05:52 PM

The main mechanism of resistance, as far as I know yet I'm only finishing up my first year in the program, is either a loss or a dysfunctional form of that particular receptor. The drug, therefore, cannot bind, giving the organism a competitive advantage in the presence of the drug. Natural selection takes it courses, and much like the moths, eventually the drug-resistant phenotype outnumbers the wild-type. So we stop using the drug. And then what happens? Those receptors have a normal physiological role, and once the environmental pressure is no longer there, the drug-resistant phenotype becomes the disadvantages organism. Eventually, the population will swing back towards the wild-type. Perfect example? Malaria was commonly treated by quinine, but then switched to more efficacious synthetic drugs after resistance developed. Now, malaria is resistance to those synthetic drugs, but is once again sensitive to quinine. Again, its not really a progressive mutation.
Well, how do you define a progressive mutation, exactly? As I understand it, evolution is basically just a response to a changing environment (assuming the organism is doing well in its "default" environment to begin with). It has no true direction or forward or backward, higher or lower. You use one drug, that drug becomes an important new part of the parasite's environment, and the species changes. You take it away, and it's another environmental change, and the species changes again. Since the new environment is similar to the original one, the trait that "gains ground" happens to be the one that was around at the time. I imagine if you were to use both drugs equally you could get it to go to a third, different trait.

...yeah, seems kinda rambling. I really hope you see what I'm trying to get at.

notasfatasmike

01-12-2007, 07:23 PM

*snip*
In rereading the post I responded to, and my post, and then your response to my post, I think we're arguing different things. My problem is with what I assumed the argument was: that is, that Nazism and more specifically Hitler's beliefs somehow *grew out of* or *are somehow based in* Christianity. In re-reading it, that's not what you're saying; it seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that the Nazis publically allied themselves with Christianity more than they did with atheism. This would be an indisputable fact.

I guess my strategy of "not reading what led up to Fifthfiend's comment" wasn't so hot after all, huh?

Archbio

01-12-2007, 10:17 PM

notasfatasmike,

In rereading the post I responded to, and my post, and then your response to my post, I think we're arguing different things. My problem is with what I assumed the argument was: that is, that Nazism and more specifically Hitler's beliefs somehow *grew out of* or *are somehow based in* Christianity. In re-reading it, that's not what you're saying; it seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that the Nazis publically allied themselves with Christianity more than they did with atheism. This would be an indisputable fact.

On the one hand there was a misunderstanding and on the other we're going to have to agree to disagree on some things.

As for the former: following I_Like_Swordchuck's phrasing I was considering the religious status of "nazi Germany", whatever that means, and not the religious status of nazism. As an ideology that's not a religious movement, I would never have ventured to place nazism on the continuum of the evolution of religion, as an offshoot of christianity or of anything else.

As a country, nazi Germany's religious status is a very complicated affair, and I didn't stop to put sincerity into consideration: it was the material reality I was going for. So I threw everything in. By sheer demographic weight and by that fact that it didn't lose nazism much popular appear, christianity comes out ahead of anything else that can be considered a religion.

However, my official position on "nazi Germany" remains that it was a very religious affair, and very complicated in that regard.

Where we will have to agree to disagree is on the role of christianity in the formation of the nazi movements or the beliefs of nazi leaders. There's no vacuum around the movements or the leaders, and in these matters similarities count more than discontinuities. If an element present in christianity comes up in Hitler's beliefs, it's reasonable, to me, to assume a continuity. I've already cited where I think these similarities lay (with the exception of the very abrahamic cosmogony implied to lay at the base of nazi racial theory) in other posts.

In that sense, I can't agree that Hitler's (sincere) beliefs in particular and some of Nazi (cynical use of) Religion in general didn't grow out of christianity, altough that's not an exclusive relationship.

I'm not saying this to tar any abrahamic religion (altough I have little love for any them), except for the old christian antisemitism, which I hope not to encounter here.

Darth SS

01-12-2007, 10:28 PM

Just an odd thought I had while sitting in school today.

We're always told "Jesus was human," and "God is understands everything."

I just realized something. If God's real, then that's complete bullshit.

Sure, Jesus walked around as a human. Here's the difference though.

He supposedly knew everything that was going to happen. If he saw someone dead, he could just revive them. Someone's sick? Heal them. Even his "grand sacrifice" loses some oomph when you think about it. He was willing to die to save every person in all time ever. Even more, he knew he was going to come back.

He wasn't human. He never knew doubt. He never knew despair. He never knew what it was like to see someone dying and know there's not a single thing you can do about it. He never knew what it was like to see someone dead, and witness the grief and realize that we are powerless. I mean, hell, he was supposedly perfect and sinned only once. Not us. We have to wrong people and face the harm we cause, something he never did. Even better, I'm sure any of us would be willing to die to save everyone in all time, especially if we knew we would come back.

Instead, he have people like Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart who were willing to go and face certain death, without coming back, simply so that one lone man can go home to his family. And they were told three times, "You don't have to do this, no one will think less of you if you don't do this."

This led me to this conclusion;

God is scared of us. He's scared of being us. All He's ever known is what's it's like to be the top dog, and has enjoyed things such as omniscience and omnipotence. He's never known what's it's like to not have those. He doesn't know what it is like to be insignifigant. Even his promise to become human was ultimately a farce, and he couldn't abandon those comforts.

ZAKtheGeek

01-12-2007, 10:32 PM

Hmm, seems a bit contradictory. If God's all-knowing, it'd know what being insignificant would be like, in spite of the total lack of experience.

Darth SS

01-12-2007, 10:33 PM

I'm thinking of knowing here in terms is experience.

Going with the earlier roller-coasted analogy, he watches everything, but he doesn't know what it's like to be on the roller coaster.

Archbio

01-12-2007, 10:34 PM

He never knew doubt. He never knew despair.

Not to defend the coherence of Jesus' story, or anything, but I think there's at least one counter-example to that.

I think a better question might be, altough it's far from novel: if Jesus and God are both real, is Jesus really God incarnate?

Death by Stabbing

01-12-2007, 11:33 PM

Jesus knew doubt...When he prayed in the Garden to not be killed

And dispair when his friend Lazarus died.

And since he's God and can bring people back from the dead if he wants it didn't last long but he was human the shortest verse in the entire Bible is "Jesus wept"

Personally...and for the atheists out there you can be as pissed off at me as you want...but I can't see how you can't not believe in something...I tried at two points in my life to abandon my Catholic upbringing and failed both times...I never fully got back in to the Church and sort of formed my own belief system by sort of combining parts of Catholosisam and Buddisam...but in any case I just can't see not believing in something...atheisam isn't believing in anything and so it just doesn't make sence...I mean some Atheists say they believe in what science has to say and that's fine...but that's not Atheisam. Atheisam is the absence of belief of anything.

So that doesn't really make sense to me.

Love,
Death By Stabbing

Demetrius

01-12-2007, 11:39 PM

The Jesus God duality, well actually tri-ality (nyuck nyuck!), is what is refered to as 'The Trinity'; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. That is a whole nother discussion, and very confusing.

ZAKtheGeek

01-13-2007, 12:18 AM

What is the holy ghost supposed to be, exactly? I've never known that...

And atheism is lack of belief in deities, not lack of belief in anything at all. Technically, even stating something like kinetic energy of an object is equal to half the mass of the object times the square of its velocity as a fact is a statement of a belief taken on faith, since such a thing can never be completely proven.

Death by Stabbing

01-13-2007, 12:49 AM

I'm pretty sure the Church made up the trinity for covering their asses

"We have one God...but he's 3 people"

That's what Hental Health Professionals call Scizophrenic...

Also ZAK...The definitaion of atheist is "non- believer" Not "doesn't believe in deities"...Well the true definition anyways...it's been changed over time be originally it meant "non believer"

DBS

PS Also out of curiosity what does the latin in your sig mean ZAK?

ZAKtheGeek

01-13-2007, 01:05 AM

It doesn't really matter what "atheist" used to mean, since usage is in the modern meaning.

And it means, "the truth is out there." It's really only in Latin to prevent people from thinking it's an X-files thing, which it totally isn't.

Okay, back to that site, with all those explanations. I've read some more, and I feel that I'm going to stop soon, because it gets pretty ridiculous. Consider the example of the article arguing against the comparison of God to Santa/unicorns/(insert random crap). Like this passage here:
It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.
Is it just me, or did this guy just make the argument that God must exist because people believe in it?

He also completely misses the point of the unicorn comparison, possibly on purpose:
Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies).

He goes on to assert that there actually is evidence for God. The passages references several others, so I'll spare you, but basically, it lays down the same "obviously designed universe" argument, which in no way proves that God exists; it only supports the idea of an intelligent creative force. The Christian God is a much more complicated claim, with many other attributes and actions associated with it.

Archbio

01-13-2007, 02:13 AM

Atheism might have been used to mean "belief in nothing", but that would have been a bit of theist propaganda, wouldn't it?

It implies that the only thing there is to believe in is a diety or dieties. That's a superfluous assumption not at all contained by the root of the word.

As for "belief in nothing", it's already well covered by the word "nihilism". Furthermore, there is the possibility of atheist religions. Atheism doesn't imply any specific worldview.

Phlegyas

01-13-2007, 03:41 AM

Hmmmm... I might be interrupting something but I read back quite a ways and it seems you can do that since this is the dedicated thread for religious discussion. Anyways, I thought I would answer the original question.

Why do I believe what I believe? This is actually a pre-made rant in a journal. I know it's kind of cheap to just copy and paste a rant but I am looking forward to the discussion of the statement, rather than stating something I have already pondered.

So here it is. It can best be described as a Universalist Unitarian point of view, since it assumes that most religions are right. My entire religious belief is based on the idea that no other religion that is just and true in EVERY way can exclude other religions from being correct by assuming that the god that they refer to is instead a collective consciousness of the people. Given that Confucianism opposes Taoism and so on, but these are from strictly opinion-based subjects. Not from actual recording of events i.e. if Buddhism stated that Jesus never existed. One problem may be that Muslim religion denies that Jesus is the Son of God (the one that is conceived by the Collective Consciousness to convey a message of great importance) but I think this is just Mohammed stating that Jesus is not the direct offspring of some physical being, but is another enlightened one that has come to bring us closer to the truth of our existence. Actually, I believe Mohammed, without realising it, states this BECAUSE God is not a physical being, but rather a spiritual being, and therefore can't have a son as the world defines a son at the time. Also, to be clear, the Collective Consciousness is not just a link between each and every individual person, but rather a conscious spiritual being that has the knowledge of the entire human race and any other sentient race in existence and judges things, according thereof. Also, on the issue of reincarnation, reincarnation, I think, is just showing that some or all entities that are part of the collective consciousness come back to further extend the knowledge of society, explaining what prophets and the like are and how actual growth takes place. Also, as to some or all, I say this because, s far as I know, all religions speak of a perpetual cycle (even Buddhism, because it states that one that is truly enlightened will choose to come back to Earth and be reincarnated, therefore continuing the cycle), i do not want to say all, in case there is somewhere where reincarnation is avoided. Also, it is fair to note that Christianity (this is the only religion I am well versed in) in no way says reincarnation does not exist, it simply doesn't mention it. Even with the concept of Heaven, Heaven is only seen as a destination AFTER the Armageddon and not before, so my belief is that Heaven is simply when the sentient races achieve all-encompassing moral knowledge and can create an intellectual Utopia where mortality is not needed to speed up the moral growth and curiosity, so reincarnation ends it's cycle. Hell is the place where the part of the social consciousness that is flawed, because before achieving Utopia there has to NOT be a Utopia, is separated from the part that isn't flawed. What dictates the date of Armageddon is in question, because there are parts of us that are flawed now, and parts that aren't, so one could assume that we should have just separated at the beginning and been done with this. The only answer I can say to this is that the full truth and enlightenment have not been achieved. We have parts but for a Utopia to exist, we need all the parts of it, and we simply have not discovered those parts as a Collective Consciousness.

Sithdarth

01-13-2007, 09:12 AM

And atheism is lack of belief in deities, not lack of belief in anything at all. Technically, even stating something like kinetic energy of an object is equal to half the mass of the object times the square of its velocity as a fact is a statement of a belief taken on faith, since such a thing can never be completely proven.

That's actually wrong in that we can take a known and measurable amount of electricity and turn it into the predicted amount of velocity. To go further than that according to Relativity energy has mass so if you added enough velocity to something you could actually measure that increase in mass. A more proper example might be Potential Energy which doesn't exist per say but is more of a theoretical construct.

And seriously? The guy makes a genome using enzymes and bases essentially CREATED for him by OTHER ORGANISMS, and you think that supports spontaneous generation? The polymerase used came from a bacteria, the nucleotides used came from a yeast, the lipids used would have come from another organism. This isn't a spontaneous generation, its a chimera. And he can't even get it to work right. There is no evidence here.

Did you even read the article. The "genome" he's making is formed of PNA or peptide nucleic acid. To quote the article:
Most organisms operate with DNA or RNA. But Rasmussen and his group plan to try a man-made nucleic acid called PNA, or peptide nucleic acid. Synthesized by Nielsen and his colleagues in the early 1990s, PNA looks and acts much like DNA�same double-helix shape, same four chemical bases. But rather than a backbone composed of sugar-phosphate molecules, PNA has one made of peptides, the building blocks of proteins.

There is even an illustration:
http://img.timeinc.net/popsci/images/medicine/med0205life_730x428.gif
These are all molecules believed to have been floating around naturally too.

What I got out of the article is that they're going to chemical create all this stuff from scratch throw it in a beaker, hit it with light, and it should in theory "eat"/"reproduce". I don't see how he's stealing from other organisms here.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-13-2007, 09:51 AM

Did you even read the article. The "genome" he's making is formed of PNA or peptide nucleic acid. To quote the article:

What I got out of the article is that they're going to chemical create all this stuff from scratch throw it in a beaker, hit it with light, and it should in theory "eat"/"reproduce". I don't see how he's stealing from other organisms here.

How does not using DNA or RNA change what I said? I never said he used DNA or RNA, I said he used nucleotides, which PNA is still a nucleotide, and the basis for forming these things came from organic compounds, most of which are produced only by living things. He's still starting with lipids and nucleic acids that weren't formed naturally.

Also, there is still the point that it hasn't worked.

42PETUNIAS

01-13-2007, 10:04 AM

atheisam isn't believing in anything and so it just doesn't make sence...I mean some Atheists say they believe in what science has to say and that's fine...but that's not Atheisam. Atheisam is the absence of belief of anything.

Well, I don't have any idea where you're getting that definition from. I mean, belief in nothing, not even science? I don't think anyone would realistically declare themself atheist by that definiton. Even according to dictionary.com that definition is wrong.

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I'd post more definitions, but all of them say the same thing, and none say "belief in nothing" or mention no belief in science. So, I have no idea where you get the idea that an atheist doesn't believe in science. So it seems like you're wrong, plain and simple.

Everything the website said about the Invisible Pink Unicorn

That made me laugh, until I realized that someone actually thought they were winning an arguement in stating that there is a contradiction in a parody of religion meant to point out that religion contradicts itself. Then I wept for humanity.

Sithdarth

01-13-2007, 11:23 AM

I never said he used DNA or RNA, I said he used nucleotides, which PNA is still a nucleotide, and the basis for forming these things came from organic compounds, most of which are produced only by living things. He's still starting with lipids and nucleic acids that weren't formed naturally.

Also, there is still the point that it hasn't worked.

Well lets look at a couple of pictures here:
PNA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Pna.PNG
DNA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/DNA_chemical_structure.png/280px-DNA_chemical_structure.png

One is made of sugars and phosphates requiring both to hold together. Its rather complex and probably wouldn't spring up if you shook a glass of these molecules. At the very least sugars that complex probably wouldn't be produced abiotically. The other is made of amino acids, those things that have been shown to non-biologically generation, and is essentially nothing more than a strange ass protein. As for nucleotides their chemical structure looks very similar to the backbone of the PNA molecule. I really don't see how it'd be so hard for them to form non-biologically if you had an amino acid rich environment. Oh and it doesn't have to be lipids only a surfactant; heck they don't even know if lipids are the best choice.

As for not having worked; yeah they should totally give up after less than 5 years of work. Despite all the computer modeling, which is surprisingly accurate these days, they should totally just accept its a lost cause. We all know that scientific breakthroughs always happen in less than 2 years. Especially the really complex breakthroughs.

On the matter of scale:
If you made a time line of Earth's histroy where 100 years, the approximate max lifespan of a human, took up 1 cm the time line would stretch 100km or 62 miles. Yes that's 62 miles. Even if you condensed 100 years down to just a millimeter the time line would still stretch 6.2 miles. You probably wouldn't be able to see a car at that distance much less the end of the line. (That is unless it was marked with something huge.) Oh and we've really only known about genetics for less than 200 years. That's a minimum of 2 millimeters on our time lines. Its kind of hard to expect significant progressive evolution in that time frame when most progressive evolution are thought to take upwards of 10000 years. (That would be a whole 10 centimeters compared to our piffling millimeter.)

Edit: Oh and the point of that guys study is not "this is how life first started". Its about "life can be a lot less complex than we think". While he may not prove that his process is the one the earliest "life" took he can prove that things much simpler than even viruses can self replicate. They really are nothing more than clumps of molecules, which come together with a little shaking (waves anyone).

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-13-2007, 12:09 PM

As for not having worked; yeah they should totally give up after less than 5 years of work. Despite all the computer modeling, which is surprisingly accurate these days, they should totally just accept its a lost cause. We all know that scientific breakthroughs always happen in less than 2 years. Especially the really complex breakthroughs....

Edit: Oh and the point of that guys study is not "this is how life first started". Its about "life can be a lot less complex than we think". While he may not prove that his process is the one the earliest "life" took he can prove that things much simpler than even viruses can self replicate. They really are nothing more than clumps of molecules, which come together with a little shaking (waves anyone).
Oh and this research kind of shows how life could have gone from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate.

I'm not criticizing his research. I'm criticizing your interpretation of it and its relevance to this thread because:

1. He's using organic molecules. Organic molecules that were made from other lifeforms.

2. It hasn't worked, so therefore hasn't proven anything yet.

3. Even if it did, its intelligent design.

ZAKtheGeek

01-13-2007, 12:36 PM

That's actually wrong in that we can take a known and measurable amount of electricity and turn it into the predicted amount of velocity. To go further than that according to Relativity energy has mass so if you added enough velocity to something you could actually measure that increase in mass.
But you see, all that would prove is that the formula happened to be right that one time. You can't prove that it's true in all cases and at all times; it's just impossible to collect all the data. Based on the massive amount of evidence that agrees with the formula, we are quite certain that it's true, but the point I was trying to make is that it isn't technically a fact and thus entails a bit of faith, meaning that an "atheist" holding no beliefs could not trust such an idea.

Sithdarth

01-13-2007, 12:41 PM

1. He's using organic molecules. Organic molecules that were made from other lifeforms.

Yeah and we all know that surprisingly complex "organic" molecules haven't been formed in a lab using early earth like conditions. Oh wait...

2. It hasn't worked, so therefore hasn't proven anything yet.

I refer you to this section of my previous post.
As for not having worked; yeah they should totally give up after less than 5 years of work. Despite all the computer modeling, which is surprisingly accurate these days, they should totally just accept its a lost cause. We all know that scientific breakthroughs always happen in less than 2 years. Especially the really complex breakthroughs.

I mean its not like he had proof enough of the concept that a bunch of skeptical scientists decided to fund his research. Oh wait...

3. Even if it did, its intelligent design.
Yes just because a man thought to himself what might the very first multimolecular form of "life" might have looked like and then found a process that should work, and by itself during early earth conditions, nature didn't come up with it first. Hell this pretty much proves that the universe itself was intelligently designed because all the theories that define it were thought up by man.

Oh and:
I'm not criticizing his research. I'm criticizing your interpretation of it and its relevance to this thread because:
Yes because when the guy state multiple times that is passion was the origin of life he didn't mean in the religion vs science sense. Oh and when he referred to PNA and a possible DNA precursor, a step on the evolutionary scale from non-life to life, he so wasn't talking about the origins of life. Hell the fact that the whole thing has to do with creating life from a bunch of crap that was never alive pretty much excludes it from dealing in anyway with abiogenesis. Oh wait..

Edit:
But you see, all that would prove is that the formula happened to be right that one time. You can't prove that it's true in all cases and at all times; it's just impossible to collect all the data. Based on the massive amount of evidence that agrees with the formula, we are quite certain that it's true, but the point I was trying to make is that it isn't technically a fact and thus entails a bit of faith, meaning that an "atheist" holding no beliefs could not trust such an idea.
That's more or less crock because that argument could be made about anything. You're confusing faith with logic; in that logic tells us that you do not form a conclusion without contrary evidence. Kinetic Energy deals with laws of motions equations that have been tested again and again and again and never once have they suddenly became wrong. The rather shocking lack of evidence for the law of kinetic energy being variable suggests that it is in fact not variable.

Again a better choice to demonstrate faith in science would have been something less concrete and measurable. Things like strings, potential energy, gravitons, gravity waves, extra dimensions, ect...

ZAKtheGeek

01-13-2007, 01:17 PM

That's more or less crock because that argument could be made about anything.
That's exactly my point. What I'm getting at here is that to define an atheist as someone with no beliefs whatsoever is to define atheism as solipsism.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-13-2007, 02:14 PM

Yeah and we all know that surprisingly complex "organic" molecules haven't been formed in a lab using early earth like conditions. Oh wait...

A simple amino acid isn't complex. Proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids are much more complex than glycine. So yeah, complex organic molecules required for self-replication HAVEN'T been formed in a lab.

I mean its not like he had proof enough of the concept that a bunch of skeptical scientists decided to fund his research. Oh wait...

You're using funding as proof??? I've got funding to clone lice DNA into fish eggs. Funding merely means he's good at writing grant applications... and yes, the point still stands. Until he's successful, his hypothesis doesn't prove or give evidence to anything. Thats why its a hypothesis. You're using an unfinished, uncompleted, experiment, which he himself doesn't know whether it will ultimately work or not, as evidence for abiogenesis. If you used this as a reference in a scientific review article, it would not hold up. There is no materials or methods, no results, no statistics, no peer review... You simply can't use it. When I say it hasn't worked yet, I'm not saying for him to scrap the project. It's quite stupid for you to even imply that I'm saying that. I'm saying it hasn't worked yet, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE USED IN A DEBATE.

Yes just because a man thought to himself what might the very first multimolecular form of "life" might have looked like and then found a process that should work, and by itself during early earth conditions, nature didn't come up with it first. Hell this pretty much proves that the universe itself was intelligently designed because all the theories that define it were thought up by man.

You don't get it. He's DESIGNING this organism. It's not popping up randomly with no sense of direction. He's guiding it in order to make a lifeform. If he ultimately succeeds, perhaps in 4 billion years the creatures that evolve from it will debating where they came from. Guess what? It will be by intelligent design! Not random!

Yes because when the guy state multiple times that is passion was the origin of life he didn't mean in the religion vs science sense. Oh and when he referred to PNA and a possible DNA precursor, a step on the evolutionary scale from non-life to life, he so wasn't talking about the origins of life. Hell the fact that the whole thing has to do with creating life from a bunch of crap that was never alive pretty much excludes it from dealing in anyway with abiogenesis. Oh wait..

Two points here. First of all, have you ever been in a science lab? To create stuff from a bunch of crap to prove abiogenesis he'd have to be using nitrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc. You say the crap he's using was never alive, of course they were. Where do you think the skeleton for his nucleotides came from? How about the lipids? How about the enzymes used to modify them to his liking? They're called organic because they come from living systems. Secondly, PNA possible DNA precursor? Because thats not pure speculation or anything... oh wait. His whole project is built on a purely speculative premise. Second of all, there's two types of scientific experiments. One is, how does this happen? Two is, can I make this happen? He's performing the second type of experiment. If he does successfully make it happen, it proves nothing more than man can make this. It doesn't prove that it happens naturally, or that it ever happened. That would be the first type of experiment. The first type of experiment involves observations and recording without intervening to interrupt the natural progression of things. He's not doing that, he's intervening big time. I can order all the parts and build a computer, but without my intervention all those parts will NEVER form a functioning computer. They'd break down first. Same thing with this. He's trying to force results to fit his hypothesis... a valid experiment, but not one that can be applied to explain the natural world. If you had ever done any courses on experimental design, you'd know that.

Once he does succeed, if he does succeed, it'll be on Nature.com or Science.com and NOT on Popsci.com... and working in molecular biology, I'll likely know about it the moment he succeeds.

And if you think I'm alone in that, you might want to consider than the guy who's doing this has very little credibility, so the odds of him succeeding are very slim. That makes sense considering popsci.com isn't really considered a legitimate scientific source... if he had credibility, I'm pretty sure he'd be on Nature or Science.

So there you go. Crackpot scientist with crackpot experiment with crackpot methodology that he can't even make work. Sure its a neat idea, but until he gets proven right his hypothesis hold little to no value in the real world. I repeat, how is that valid in our current argument?

Sithdarth

01-13-2007, 03:13 PM

A simple amino acid isn't complex. Proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids are much more complex than glycine. So yeah, complex organic molecules required for self-replication HAVEN'T been formed in a lab.
Except he isn't using full proteins. From looking at the scale of his organism he isn't using something a fraction of the size of a protein. Lipids and nucleic acids are significantly less complex than proteins. I mean we're talking tens of molecules vs hundreds to thousands. Hundreds to thousands of molecules that have to come together and fold a very particular way. That's a pretty big leap in complexity and if he was actually using proteins I could see the issue.

You're using funding as proof??? I've got funding to clone lice DNA into fish eggs. Funding merely means he's good at writing grant applications... and yes, the point still stands.
...
So there you go. Crackpot scientist with crackpot experiment with crackpot methodology that he can't even make work. Sure its a neat idea, but until he gets proven right his hypothesis hold little to no value in the real world. I repeat, how is that valid in our current argument?
So scientist are in the habit of throwing $5 million large at a group of crackpots. Oh and Steen Rasmussen may be the project leader but he doesn't do any chemistry. All the chemistry comes from Liaohai Chen (http://www.bio.anl.gov/pi/chen.html) and boy looking at his patents he seems like a crackpot to me.

I also redirect you to here:
Edit: Oh and the point of that guys study is not "this is how life first started". Its about "life can be a lot less complex than we think". While he may not prove that his process is the one the earliest "life" took he can prove that things much simpler than even viruses can self replicate. They really are nothing more than clumps of molecules, which come together with a little shaking (waves anyone).

Again this was never about proving that this is precisely what happened. Its about showing its possible to have live that is immeasurably simpler than the simplest known life.

Until he's successful, his hypothesis doesn't prove or give evidence to anything. Thats why its a hypothesis. You're using an unfinished, uncompleted, experiment, which he himself doesn't know whether it will ultimately work or not, as evidence for abiogenesis. If you used this as a reference in a scientific review article, it would not hold up. There is no materials or methods, no results, no statistics, no peer review... You simply can't use it. When I say it hasn't worked yet, I'm not saying for him to scrap the project. It's quite stupid for you to even imply that I'm saying that. I'm saying it hasn't worked yet, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE USED IN A DEBATE.

So wait I can't use a theory that has at the very least convinced a panel of skeptical scientists of its plausibility. Not to mention was proven possible using sophisticated computer simulations. While on the other hand you get to pull in faith, your "feeling" of god", and any number of unprovable things. Mmmmm, I love the smell of double standards in the morning-ish.

You don't get it. He's DESIGNING this organism. It's not popping up randomly with no sense of direction. He's guiding it in order to make a lifeform. If he ultimately succeeds, perhaps in 4 billion years the creatures that evolve from it will debating where they came from. Guess what? It will be by intelligent design! Not random!
Now see it seems much more to me like he's designing an environment were this organism could form not so much the organism itself. If he wanted to design an organism he could stitch together an organism or do that top-down thing.

Two points here. First of all, have you ever been in a science lab? To create stuff from a bunch of crap to prove abiogenesis he'd have to be using nitrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc. You say the crap he's using was never alive, of course they were. Where do you think the skeleton for his nucleotides came from? How about the lipids? How about the enzymes used to modify them to his liking? They're called organic because they come from living systems. Secondly, PNA possible DNA precursor? Because thats not pure speculation or anything... oh wait. His whole project is built on a purely speculative premise.
Gee last time I checked molecules, even the organic kind, weren't considered their own individual life forms. I'll give you my individual cells are alive. I would not consider my individual proteins alive. I mean otherwise there probably wouldn't be debate over the status of viruses and prions.

Secondly, all scientific research starts, at least in part, with speculation. Otherwise why do the experiment if there is nothing to prove. This is way one must speculate. Its kind of what makes theories theories.

Also, thank you for assuming I had no scientific background what soever. I mean its not like it was possible with my obviously deep understanding of a lot of the laws of physics doesn't suggest something like I might be working on a bachelors in physics or anything.

Once he does succeed, if he does succeed, it'll be on Nature.com or Science.com and NOT on Popsci.com... and working in molecular biology, I'll likely know about it the moment he succeeds.

And if you think I'm alone in that, you might want to consider than the guy who's doing this has very little credibility, so the odds of him succeeding are very slim. That makes sense considering popsci.com isn't really considered a legitimate scientific source... if he had credibility, I'm pretty sure he'd be on Nature or Science.
So a magazine ostensibly about science can't at least once in awhile run a respectable science story? Of course its not an academic journal but just because they feature a story about a scientist doesn't make that scientist a crackpot. Especially if its an entire team of scientist with $5 million worth of grant money.

Additionally, you seem to be getting a tad worked up here, as evidenced by the sudden appearance of capitalized phrases and the sudden personal attacks on my ability to reason and my potential experience. Perhaps a break is in order.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-13-2007, 03:45 PM

First of all I apologize for implying you don't know anything about science. You know more about physics than me. I'll downgrade that to I know a lot more about biology than you.

Second of all I don't pretend I can prove God's existence. Reread this thread if you want, I haven't even tried.

The only reason I can give to accept God and Jesus and the whole thing is the personal experience.

Thats what I said right there. No attempt to prove it or say that therefore I'm right. He can believe that if he wants, but a belief isn't proof. No different from me. I'm not saying his hypothesis is invalid, I'm saying its invalid for you to use it as evidence of abiogenesis. I love the smell of Red Herring fallacies in the morning.

Third of all, grant size and whoever the hell his chemist is doesn't make his HYPOTHESIS (stop calling it a theory... its not a theory... its a hypothesis, otherwise known as an unproven guess) any more accurate. Lots of grant money is a sign of knowing who to talk to and how to persuade people into giving you money, not a sign of legitimacy or accuracy. And I fail to see how having a talented chemist gives credence to his hypothesis? You have no way of knowing what is motivating the guy to do the chemistry for it, it could be purely financial or perhaps he wants to try and prove abiogenesis as well.

Fourthly, all organic molecules (except for those small amino acids successfully made in a lab) come from life at somepoint. A bone isn't alive, but without life you'd never get that bone. Same thing with the nucleotides and lipids and enzymes, without life being already present, he'd never have access to them.

Fifthly I realize speculation is a part of science. But speculation isn't evidence. You want to know what you said when you linked the article first?

Oh and this research kind of shows how life could have gone from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate.

Your statement implies that it SHOWS how life could have began... but it doesn't. Until he is successful, he hasn't shown anything. As a science major you should know better than to use an currently unsuccessful experiment as evidence. Maybe in five more years, but not today.

Sixthly, I was getting annoyed because of you sarcastic tone in your previous post (does the words "oh wait" ring a bell?), and the fact that you put words in my mouth (implying that I was saying the research should be scratched, when I was saying the research wasn't even finished).

So in conclusion, all you have succeeded in proving with this guy is that there's a couple of scientists out there who have a currently untested, unsupported hypothesis of how abiogenesis could have worked, that very few other scientists even think is right. Congratulations. Once again, I ask, until this research is finished, how does it have any impact on this thread? Answer: It doesn't.

ZAKtheGeek

01-13-2007, 05:33 PM

Well, it has a small impact. If someone can't think of any way abiogenesis could have possibly happened, this is an example.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-13-2007, 06:47 PM

Well, it has a small impact. If someone can't think of any way abiogenesis could have possibly happened, this is an example.

Fine. There's a small impact. But there's better ways to defend the possibility of abiogenesis than using a generally unaccepted hypothesis that has no supporting evidence that it could even work. If we had to go into every single variation of abiogenesis or intelligent design it would take a really long time, so I don't really see the point in bringing that particular experiment up until it has more conclusive evidence.

And in Sithdarth's original post he still said that it shows how abiogenesis works, and my response is still 'no it doesn't'.

Sithdarth

01-13-2007, 11:40 PM

Except I never claimed it as proof. Here is what I originally said:
Oh and this research kind of shows how life could have gone from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate.
Note the phrases "kind of" and "could have". They imply a level of uncertainty or rather what I've since made more clear through my posts. IE. that his method may infact not be how life really did get started but it demonstrates a possible path from things that are nothing more than molecules to something approaching life. That is all I have ever maintained from the beginning. So really same claim as you just from the other side.

Third of all, grant size and whoever the hell his chemist is doesn't make his HYPOTHESIS (stop calling it a theory... its not a theory... its a hypothesis, otherwise known as an unproven guess) any more accurate. Lots of grant money is a sign of knowing who to talk to and how to persuade people into giving you money, not a sign of legitimacy or accuracy. And I fail to see how having a talented chemist gives credence to his hypothesis? You have no way of knowing what is motivating the guy to do the chemistry for it, it could be purely financial or perhaps he wants to try and prove abiogenesis as well.
Except that most theories start out as unproven guesses. Relativity, Quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, heck just about anything in physics. Perhaps not but their support tends to lend credibility to the fact that he might not be totally off his rocker. Also, according to the article their proposal was thick with chemical equations written by Chen. I don't care how much money was being forked at him he couldn't invent a series of chemical reactions that seem to do what they claim if there wasn't at least something to the research.

Fifthly I realize speculation is a part of science. But speculation isn't evidence. You want to know what you said when you linked the article first?
I refer you once again to the use of "kind of" and "could have". If I wanted to state it as absolute proof that sentence would have read "Oh and this research shows how life progressed from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate." Very big difference, eh?

Your statement implies that it SHOWS how life could have began... but it doesn't. Until he is successful, he hasn't shown anything. As a science major you should know better than to use an currently unsuccessful experiment as evidence. Maybe in five more years, but not today.
Not evidence really just a possible explanation. One of the key points in this thread is how there is basically nothing simpler between single celled organisms and molecules. This could potentially be that step. I'm also pretty sure he's not the only one hacking away at this problem from the bottom. He even expressed worry over other research projects currently underway.

Sixthly, I was getting annoyed because of you sarcastic tone in your previous post (does the words "oh wait" ring a bell?), and the fact that you put words in my mouth (implying that I was saying the research should be scratched, when I was saying the research wasn't even finished).
I just happen to be a sarcastic kind of guy. It wasn't directed at you. Oh and as for putting words in people's mouths I'd say the pot was calling the kettle black. Simply put almost this entire post is me explaining that you mistakenly assumed I was trying to use this guys research as proof when I wasn't. You don't see me getting angry. Perhaps you take this discussion a little to personally?

So in conclusion, all you have succeeded in proving with this guy is that there's a couple of scientists out there who have a currently untested, unsupported hypothesis of how abiogenesis could have worked, that very few other scientists even think is right. Congratulations. Once again, I ask, until this research is finished, how does it have any impact on this thread? Answer: It doesn't.
That was pretty much my entire point. IE. I wanted to go "hey there is a reasonably possible method predicted through science by which a bunch of currently inanimate molecules can clump together and perhaps make something that is like life." My point was not, "Hey this proves abiogenesis/this must be exactly how abiogenesis happened." That'd be utterly stupid. Something we can probably agree on.

ZAKtheGeek

01-14-2007, 12:28 AM

You know what, I'd like to go back and harp on that Deem Rich site a bit more, because now I'm actually feeling that I gave it too much credit.

The first and most convincing argument it presents is that the universe must have been intelligently designed. It says that this must be so because the universe is so "fine tuned" in its constants and laws to allow a variety of elements exist.

What this actually proves is that, statistically, it's extremely unlikely that a single universe like this one could have arisen by chance. Let's just say it's impossible. Now, the multiverse theory could explain this, but the guy says there's no backing for such a theory, and like a fool, I believed him. In fact, the very idea that a single universe like this one is impossible is the very justification for a multiverse: this is but one out of infinite (?) shots.

Instead, Deem says the universe was made this way on purpose, and thus intelligently. That's only a partial explanation, though. There's still the matter of why an intelligent force would desire to create a universe like this one and not of a different form. It wants life? Worshipers? Pretty planets? Pretty (sub)atomic structures? Could be a lot of reasons, and many of those in no way imply the "loving" Christian god. Plus, it further complicates the hypothesis, since it's not just an intelligent force that created the universe, it's an intelligent force with a motive to create a universe like this one. This doesn't instantly hit me as any less convoluted than the realization of all possibilities.

Krylo

01-14-2007, 12:50 AM

ZAKtheGeek

01-14-2007, 01:21 AM

That too, but the guy mostly wrote about factors that would have greatly reduced the variability of matter in the universe, as in, all hydrogen and whatnot. Which I assume is accurate.

crzy lion

01-14-2007, 06:27 AM

Hate to start poking holes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death

So... you see... even your orange rock eventually will cease to exist. All we'll be left with (In theory mind you, as all of this science stuff is theoretical) is this massive expanse of photons. Thats pretty darn close to nothing.

after reading through 2 pages i found soooooo many "scientific" statements that werent scientific at all i decided to put my word here...
a: heat failing and stars flying away is 1 possible end, out of the 2 possible endings, the other one is that gravity will keep pulling the stars, which will decrease speed, and fall back. then we will probably have the big bang all over (this is the ending that makes most sense to me to be honest).

Sithdarth

01-14-2007, 08:26 AM

a: head failing us all is 1 possible end, out of the 2 possible endings, the other one is that gravity will keep pulling the stars, which will decrease speed, and fall back. then we will probably have the big bang all over (this is the ending that makes most sense to me to be honest).

Couple of things here:

1) head failing us all?

2) That theory pretty much went out when they found evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually increasing. Still held by some scientist though.

3) Heat-death and the big rip, were the fabric of space tears itself apart, are generally considered more likely than the big crunch. (The big crunch being gravity collapse.)

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-14-2007, 10:00 AM

Also, there's no proof that if the universe had come about differently, that different forms of life wouldn't have evolved in it, and then gone off about how their universe is perfect for them, and thus it must have been intelligently desigend.

It's not that the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for our survival. It's that we are perfectly fine-tuned for the universe we arose in.

In a sense, yes. However, there are some constants that make this seem highly unlikely. For instance, if the electromagnetic force were stronger than it is, (actually, it would probably have to be significantly stronger) it would impede the fusion reactions within stars.

Without fusion reactions we would be left with hydrogen, helium, and some form of lithium -- only elements that the Big Bang itself produced. There are only so many ways hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium can combine.

And there's also no more energy than the gravitational compression of massive bodies. Which means that virtually all the matter in the universe would form stars that would just... sit there, perpetually, as brown dwarves.

So, in short:
-No heat.
-No planets.
-No heavy elements.
-Few, if any, complex mollecules of any kind.

So, in terms of life, I think that universe is pretty screwed. (I mean, I know there's a whole "you can't prove that" thing going on there, but, frankly, one needs some basic conception of life, and I think complex mollecules and the ability to rearrange them in some way are somewhat intrinsic to that.)

However, that would probably take a truly massive change. Minor changes would do next to nothing, or only increase the maximum density of brown dwarf stars.

The only real problem with that line of thought is that we have only ourselves as bases for comparison. Essentially, hugely big, minutely small, and out in left field are all equally likely places for the power of the electromagnetic force in any conceptual universe -- as far as we know.

However, on the oppsite end of that, if the electromagnetic force were ratcheted up that high, it might be capable of doing things that we've never seen before. Perhaps to the extent of providing the kind of energy exchanges that fusion otherwise would.

And who the hell knows if these forces wouldn't even be replaced with something weirder? We have no conception.

So, it's possible to end up with a universe whose forces make life next to impossible -- however, there are also a wide range of constants, and inclusions of forces we have no conception of, that would also not make life impossible.

We just have no friggin' idea.

Though, from the simplest standpoint, if you take infinite tries with no constants than, yes, you could come out with a universe in which, basically, anything is possible, including the impossibility of life. I mean, it just makes sense.

That doesn't really mean it's likely though.

(The big crunch being gravity collapse.)
I prefer the "Gnab Gib" myself.

crzy lion

01-14-2007, 12:26 PM

yea...i have no idea why i made that typo, i was in a hurry. And let's keep it at that.

anyways, while gravity will allways exist and allways keep pulling on the stars, the speed is a constant that can only decrease, thats why the big crunch makes more sense to me. Besides: our heat has nothing to do with the other stars, and the sun dying out will take so long its by far more probable imho that the human race will have annihilated itself than the human race dying b/c the sun dies.

heck, imo: extra terrestial pink lady-bugs ruling over the humans is going to happen sooner than the humans outliving the sun

42PETUNIAS

01-14-2007, 12:46 PM

heck, imo: extra terrestial pink lady-bugs ruling over the humans is going to happen sooner than the humans outliving the sun

Unless theres a really stupid person on this thread, no one has come even close to argueing that we'll live anywhere close to the time that our sun will give out. That'd just be idiotic.

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-14-2007, 01:11 PM

the speed is a constant that can only decrease
Except that the apparent speed is increasing.

I know, it suprised us, too.

The space between galaxies is getting larger more quickly than before. The process is accelerating, rather than decelerating like we expected.

That's what Sithdarth was talking about.

Sithdarth

01-14-2007, 02:48 PM

Read and be enlightened, and also really freaked out. (http://panisse.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf)

Ziek

01-19-2007, 04:18 PM

Anyone ever hear that the universe is ever-expanding? It goes along with the theory of infinite largeness. It makes sense that things are speeding up as well because the faster things move, the more heat there is. The more heat there is, the more energy, the more energy the more speed. Only reason I am even saying this is because as things move further apart, other objects' gravity affects other objects even less until the objects are out of the other objects gravitational field all together, then there will be nothing slowing them down. But hey, I believe in infinity, and somehtign has to start the infinity for it to keep going. A beginning without an end you know?

ZAKtheGeek

01-19-2007, 05:38 PM

Or it could be a true infinity with no beginning, either.

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 06:03 PM

A ton of different thoughts have been going through my head, and I'm not sure if they're smart or not, I'm a little worried because I don't know the average age of people using this forum, so maybe I'll seem like a complete idiot.

I'll start by saying I'm 14 and Catholic, I believe in my religion even if I don't completely love the church. I believe that the church does things for no reason, just because of tradition. I dislike it when the church makes decisions on what’s right or wrong in the current day issues, that haven’t even come close to being mentioned in the bible, or a small passage is taken out of context to relate to current issues. Sometime people have to make there own decision on what’s right or wrong for them, especially in issues not mentioned in the bible.

This leads me to another thing I've been thinking about. Is something sin if you don't feel guilty about it? I know in a lot of religions sin is sin, and that’s it, but why would humans have been given free will if there was going to be the same strict set of rules for everyone? In my religion I'm supposed to apologies, but if I apologies for things that I don't feel sorry for, aren’t I lying to God? Isn't that a greater sin then whatever small thing I did?

On a completely different note, I also want to tell my idea about Heaven and Hell. Being its obvious that it isn't a vistable place (from this existence that is.) maybe these places are in our mind, maybe dying is like being in an eternal dream, and the less guilt you have when you die the better the dream is. Have you ever felt bad about something and had trouble sleeping or heard someone saying that they can "sleep easy"? That’s what I think death is like, because I think it’s impossible for death to be just nothing, I mean, nothing seems an impossible idea to me, because there’s always something.

Anyone have Comments?

42PETUNIAS

01-19-2007, 06:09 PM

This leads me to another thing I've been thinking about. Is something sin if you don't feel guilty about it?

My guess is that it would be much more of a sin if you don't feel bad about it. I mean, whats worse, a serial killer who feels no remorse, does it because he loves it, and doesn't feel bad at all, or one that can't stop himself, and cries himself to sleep every night because he feels so bad about what he has done?

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 06:26 PM

My guess is that it would be much more of a sin if you don't feel bad about it. I mean, whats worse, a serial killer who feels no remorse, does it because he loves it, and doesn't feel bad at all, or one that can't stop himself, and cries himself to sleep every night because he feels so bad about what he has done?
This is a good point, but if he felt no remorse, chances are he isn't menally right, so it couldn't be a sin.

42PETUNIAS

01-19-2007, 06:42 PM

This is a good point, but if he felt no remorse, chances are he isn't menally right, so it couldn't be a sin.

Well, no one said that people who aren't completly well go to heaven. Also, there are many justifications that sane people could use to think that it's all right. Like if the person was a very extremist muslim (No offence meant) than killing infidels might be considered ok. There are many reasons why someone wouldnt feel guilt, and still be sane.

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 06:50 PM

Well, no one said that people who aren't completly well go to heaven. Also, there are many justifications that sane people could use to think that it's all right. Like if the person was a very extremist muslim (No offence meant) than killing infidels might be considered ok. There are many reasons why someone wouldnt feel guilt, and still be sane.
Well why wouldn't poeple with mental disablities go to heaven?

The only reason that Muslium extremist kill is that there faith has been manpipulated to become something its not, so its pretty much falling into a trap, which shouldn't count of sin.

ZAKtheGeek

01-19-2007, 07:09 PM

And how is that different from Satan tricking Eve?

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 07:12 PM

Well Eve wasn't sent to hell, she was kicked out of Eden, but theres a difference.

42PETUNIAS

01-19-2007, 07:12 PM

Well why wouldn't poeple with mental disablities go to heaven?

The only reason that Muslium extremist kill is that there faith has been manpipulated to become something its not, so its pretty much falling into a trap, which shouldn't count of sin.

All of thought would be true if what religion taught was completly logical, but it isn't. Accepting Jesus is the only way to get into heaven, as is the general consensus, the word of the bible, and what is taught preached in most churches. So if someone is disabled or manipulated in a way that makes them commit sin, and never ask jesus for forgiveness, then the burden of their sin is on them, and they're fucked.

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 07:14 PM

There is zero chance God would create a person, just for them to go to hell.

ZAKtheGeek

01-19-2007, 07:18 PM

42PETUNIAS

01-19-2007, 07:23 PM

There is zero chance God would create a person, just for them to go to hell.

And yet, God is omniscient. So he knows everything, and I mean everything. As soon as he created the first man, he knew exactly what would follow. Forever. So when he created the first man, he knew the he would send many, many, many people to hell by doing this. Therefore, God has indeed created people to send them to hell. This has been discussed previously in this thread too. It's a huge thread, so I can understand not wanting to read through it, but glancing through it might be a good idea. It's great that you want to be in this, because it's been dead for a while, but a little basic knowledge on what has been discussed can be helpful.

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 07:28 PM

There's a lot of silliness flying around.

First of all, all I meant was that Eve being tricked seems to count as sin, but you said that "falling into a trap" doesn't, yet they seem like the same thing. I wasn't referring to the outcome, only the action's classification.

Second, it doesn't matter whether the serial killer is mentally right or not; that's just attacking the example. You can use something small if you want. Steal a dollar and feel no remorse. Does that make you mentally unstable? No. Is it regretless sin? Yep. Hellbound? According to 42PETUNIAS, indeed.
On the first part, I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but still, guilt might might have been involved, but after talking to 42PETUNIAS, they must have gone to hell eventually, being Jesus hadn't come yet. :shifty:
For the Dollar example, maybe guilt isn't the perfect word for it, but more of knowing that there'll be negitive reprocusions.

ZAKtheGeek

01-19-2007, 07:59 PM

So does or doesn't being trapped into an action count as sin?

And no, guilt is exactly the word I wanted to use, because that's the word you used in the first place.

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 08:13 PM

I ment for me to have used in the first place.

ZAKtheGeek

01-19-2007, 09:02 PM

Well then, please restate the corrected phrase, because I'm lost now.

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 09:17 PM

I am too....I think I'm done debating relgious philosphys anyway..That was fun though.

42PETUNIAS

01-19-2007, 09:47 PM

well... that was hardly intellectually fufilling.

Dino_Hunter

01-19-2007, 11:04 PM

Da poeples here is be smart, huh?

42PETUNIAS

01-19-2007, 11:08 PM

Da poeples here is be smart, huh?

Just cause this is unmodded dusnt mean you can talk cletus.

ZAKtheGeek

01-19-2007, 11:48 PM

Actually, it does mean that. But it certainly wouldn't be appreciated.

To keep something going, I'd like to ask another question. Of the religious folk, again. At the beginning I asked why you believed. Now I'll be more specific: why do you believe in your particular religion, as opposed to a different one?

Azisien

01-20-2007, 12:21 AM

I'd take out an educated guess and say the vast majority practice the religion they grew up around, or a close one. Grew up in a Christian/Catholic environment, are probably Christian/Catholic. Grew up in a Muslim environment, are probably Muslim. Etc etc.

A smaller minority have probably more extensively researched many religions and made a decision on their preferred one.

42PETUNIAS

01-20-2007, 08:18 AM

I'd also like to add an attachement to that question, is there anyone who follows a specific religion, (As in Islam or christianity, as opposed to agnosticism or something general like that) that they were raised with?

Nique

01-20-2007, 06:53 PM

Anymore 'chirstianity' is kind of an obtuse label as well. There are many variations on it.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses... We don't preform infant baptism, but I was more or less raised as a Jehovah's Witness.

42PETUNIAS

01-20-2007, 07:10 PM

I am curious, what, in your own words, does a Jehovah's witness believe?

ZAKtheGeek

01-20-2007, 07:13 PM

So are you saying you're a Jehovah's Witness just because you were raised that way?

42PETUNIAS

01-20-2007, 07:22 PM

I think "just" is putting it a little strongly. As happens more and more these days, people are gaining the ability to look past what they were raised as, and choose a religion that fits them. Nique is clearly an enlightened individual, so saying that he's "just" a jehovah's witness because that's how he was raised is an insult.

ZAKtheGeek

01-20-2007, 08:36 PM

Hey, I'm just going by what's presented in the post.

Nique

01-21-2007, 04:49 AM

I am curious, what, in your own words, does a Jehovah's witness believe?

Hm. Not sure how to answer that concisely...

I guess these would be some core concepts.

-That the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that it (not our belifes or 'leaders') is infalible.

-That 'Jehovah' is God's personal name (or, rather, it is the english version of the tetragramaton 'YHWH'), and that he wants us to use it in our worship.

-That Jehovah is a seperate, superior personality, from that of Jesus. That they are both induviduals, and that Jesus was a direct creation of God.

-That God's originol purpose for the earth, which was for it to be an eternal paradise/ utopian society for humans, still stands, and that God is working still towards this goal. Jesus sacrafice of his human life acts as a symbolic ransom for our own lives, allowing us as people unfit for such an environment in our current physical and moral state, to be brought in to this arrangement.

-We belive that the year 1914 marks the beginning of the 'time of the end', which is essentially the precursor to the more colorful events of the book of Revelation. After these events, the earth and humans will be restored to perfection (read this as relative perfection, not omnipotence. Basically; perfect health, no genetic defects, and agelessness, in a united society on a planet that isn't on the verge of blowing up/ being blown up)

-That humans do not possess an immortal soul, but rather, that they are souls (literally, breathers). This pretty much negates the idea that people would be tormented in a literal hell, making 'hades' or 'sheol' purely figurative. A metaphor for the state of complete inactivity, mental and otherwise, that ALL humans are subject to in death.

Just for clarification, I'm listing these right now ONLY to answer the posed question. I am more than happy to discuss why I belive these things, but I'm not trying to refute anyone else's belifes at this juncture. So, this isn't an argument at the moment... merely information about what I belive. Ok? ok.

So are you saying you're a Jehovah's Witness just because you were raised that way?

No, and I'm sorry I gave that impression. I do belive that I have been taught the truth - any questions I have had about my belifes have been satisfactorily answered, and I've never gotten mixed messages, about doctrine essepcially, from any publication or teaching that Jehovah's Witnesses have published or endorsed. So I conciously and intentionally developed a trust for this paticular organization. I got baptised when I was 15.

I did this keeping in mind that, even though I belive Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching truth and are being used by God, I was actually dedicating myself to God... not to the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. I identify myself as a part of this group now becuase I belive this is the organization God will be using until the earth is restored to paradise. I mean, the 1st centuary christians weren't called 'Jehovah's Witnesses' (although it is an appropriate title)... it was a different organization God was using for that time period.

Hopefully that makes sense. It's essentially the same thing as saying 'I am a Jehovah's Witness', but the above clarification is a matter of princeple - that God is firstplace, for me.

Nique is clearly an enlightened individual, so saying that he's "just" a jehovah's witness because that's how he was raised is an insult.

Thanks for that, but really it's ok. I can see how my comments were interpreted that way. I'm just glad I got a chance to clarify.

ZAKtheGeek

01-21-2007, 03:48 PM

It seems like you misunderstood my question. When I was asking why you're a Jehovah's Witness, I meant more along the lines of why you believe in the various doctrines and claims of Jehovah's Witnesses, not why you identify yourself as one. You did write something that could be an answer to my question:
any questions I have had about my belifes have been satisfactorily answered, and I've never gotten mixed messages, about doctrine essepcially, from any publication or teaching that Jehovah's Witnesses have published or endorsed.
Is it? Do you feel, for example, that other faiths are inconsistent in their teachings, so you reject those? Or is there a different answer?

LordBalmung18

01-29-2007, 09:14 PM

Let me jump in here for a second..i dunno if its a good idea but this seems like a time to share personal experience.

Im a christian. I cant say what sect of christian or whatever you wanna refert to it as, cause it doesnt have one. I heard a word for it once and cant remember it for the life of me.

I wasnt raised as what i am today. My childhood was spent as church of christ, which is primarily a southern thing and wont make much sense to anyone else. It takes a strict literal view of the bible, believeing that every word in there is true, and anything contradictory is explained by"Well..god said so. Shut up.:.

Needless to say i found church very dull growing up, and i did not enjoy my faith at all. It was forced on me, and to some degree my family is STILL trying to force that belief on me.

So during my teen years, i naturally rebelled. First i tried the obvious, doing tjhe opposite. I tried pagan religons, wicca, earth worship, all that crap. I learned a great many things, none of which can really be expressed without the person experiencing it for himself. Look into it if you never have, the knowledge is enlightening.

Then i tried the other obvious answer, belief in nothing. I took the world for what it is, nothing supernatural, just accepting the explanations i was given. That lasted a very short time, cause theres just too many events, too many feelings and moments that cant be explained by weather baloons and swamp[ gas(lawl).

So i took stock of everything around me. I researched all i could into the three major branches of western religon, all the eastern religons i could dig up dirt on, paganism, shamanism...you name it. I took all the information in at once and thought about what i should do.

And the answer finally came. I would be christian. After being read the (forgive mispellings, as these were read out loud to me cause i cant read the language)torah, koran, traditional bible as well as original hebrew of it, and nameless texts on 2-3 pagan religons and alot of stuff i cant even mispell on asian religons...i chose to be christian. Not catholic as is so popular, or baptist or methodist or any of the thousand other divided sects..but simply christian. I said i would read the bible, interpret is best i could, discuss it with other faithful people when i couldnt get past something difficult.

And guess what? I feel alot more fulfilled than i ever did before. Not in that gay, life turned around when i found god tv special kind of way..but kind of like..a sense of something finally clicking home. I found that something that fit specifically me.

And lo and behold, since ive done so my life has improved. I went from a using a disability as a crutch worthless lowlife..to someone whos trying to make something of himself. Im in college now..i have a wonderful girlfriend im trying desperately to go see..and overall my life is finally moving forward for the first time in 8 years. That is my faith. Thats what it means to me. Finding god has given me the strength to finally get back up after people beat me down.

Does that answer some questions?

42PETUNIAS

01-29-2007, 09:27 PM

I went from a using a disability as a crutch worthless lowlife.
Just out of curiosity, is this a literal disability, or are you using a metaphor?

Personally, when I decided that I was atheist/agnostic, I think I experienced the same sort of "clicking" feeling as you described. I think different beliefs are right for different people. And that, above making others happy, above converting other people to what you think is best, above doing what you are told, is what truly matters. Making yourself happy.

Then i tried the other obvious answer, belief in nothing. I took the world for what it is, nothing supernatural, just accepting the explanations i was given. That lasted a very short time, cause theres just too many events, too many feelings and moments that cant be explained by weather baloons and swamp[ gas(lawl).
You'd have to say a lot, lot, lot more than that to convince anyone on that position. Some examples would be nice.

ZAKtheGeek

01-29-2007, 10:43 PM

And that, above making others happy, above converting other people to what you think is best, above doing what you are told, is what truly matters. Making yourself happy.
Well, not me. I'm literally a philosopher; all I want is the truth. Personal convenience is irrelevant.

Although knowing truths makes me happy. So I guess you could see it that way too.

I don't know when exactly I "became" an atheist (which might have resulted from a lack of religious influence while growing up). I am pretty sure that the initial notion that convinced me was the consideration of religion in perspective. There have been thousands of religions throughout the history of civilization (let's not even go into the possible reasons for this), most of which I was and still am totally unfamiliar with, yet most of them are automatically discarded as "mythology." They're not even given a second thought. So what makes modern faiths any different, really?

It's like Dawkins said. "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

LordBalmung18

01-30-2007, 08:22 AM

Literal disability, something i could probably have coasted by the rest of my life on. But that would make only work for me, and i have other people to be concerned with.

And while i could happily quote examples of extranormal and paranormal things i felt ive experienced, it would be pointless. At some points you either have to go look for yourself or stick your thumbs in your ears and pretend its not there. That might sound harsh but its kinda like..a first kiss or really good ramen or the feeling that acompanies crushing someones soul in a videogame. You really have to experience it for yourself.

And while truth for the sake of truth sounds good in theory, nothing is ever that simple in real life. Things just dont line themselves up and say"Ok this is the way things really work. You can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Tell everyone. Now. Go. Quit drooling."

So..(dont miss the tiny irony here)What im telling other people these days..is they should take stock of everything like i did..and decide what they wanna believe. Dont let anyone else influence you till you make that decision.

ZAKtheGeek

01-30-2007, 11:28 AM

And while truth for the sake of truth sounds good in theory, nothing is ever that simple in real life. Things just dont line themselves up and say"Ok this is the way things really work. You can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Tell everyone. Now. Go. Quit drooling."
I have no idea what you're talking about...

And while i could happily quote examples of extranormal and paranormal things i felt ive experienced, it would be pointless. At some points you either have to go look for yourself or stick your thumbs in your ears and pretend its not there.
That's interesting, because I could say the same about a theological viewpoint. So I'd be very interested in hearing more nonetheless. I'm really not getting what's unexplainable yet personal... It doesn't seem like you're talking about religious revelations; "God talking to you." I mean, I could think of some unexplained things in this world (their existence doesn't prove much in the face of all that has been reasonably explained), but they're quite open for anyone to examine or at least research.

Funka Genocide

01-30-2007, 12:47 PM

I saw Nique mention that he is a Jehovah's witness and it reminded me suddenly of my early childhood. My mother had taken up with that particular religious bent when I was three or four, and as such I was silently indoctrinated into their worldview. I can't say that I ever believed it, but by the very nature of a parent child relationship I believed it was right to believe.

Something happens when faced with an illogical decision at an early age, or at least I believe it's a common phenomenon. Most people accept, adapt and internalize a belief. I tend to think of it as placing a certain truth in a little box for safe and eternal keeping. You put this little box at the foundation of an inevitable mountain of experience and suddenly it becomes unnassailable. No manner of mundane thought or revelation can open this box, that old and unexamined truth becomes a bastion of faith from which all other belief sprouts.

That's what's supposed to happen, that's what society at large and our beloved parents want to happen, they want you to believe in their fantasies and you want so desperately to belong. It's a heartless thing to do to a child.

My own personal experience went differently of course, I can't fully explain why either. Perhaps it was the overt perversion of faith presented to my simple young mind that lead me to expel it, the fact that so many people seemed to be waiting around for the world to end, waiting for all problems to solve themselves, waiting to be saved from the trouble they started themselves. Though that's a 23 year old looking back nearly two decades, who can say what a five year old me really thought, only that this obsession with armageddon disgusted me.

I was haunted by images of global destruction, by the realities of mortality and by the contradictions of a society supposedly ran by responsible adults. there were no answers, only the pacifying influence of blind faith, For some reason that palcebo just wasn't effective for me.

Losing one's faith, even a faith only as young as I was, is an unsettling event. But with the loss of one faith is the advent of a vacuum, contrary to what many nihilists might believe, it is impossible to believe in nothing. Even nothing is something right?

Many years, religious discussions and life altering events later I'm still what you could patent as an atheist, and for a very simple reason that I believe many religious persons overlook.

Religion is waiting for someone else to fix the world, true faith is believing you can do it yourself.

Believe in people, they're all we've got.

I'd love to have a few religious discussions, unfortunately I think I'd come off as violently opposed to any and all religions (which I am) I'm not an illogical opponent of course, but I find that battles of faith are impossible to win. YOu have to let go first, then comes enlightenment. Or something like that.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-30-2007, 03:30 PM

Azisien

01-30-2007, 03:49 PM

I'd hazard a guess and say both sides are pretty arrogant. Now, I'm a 20 year old athiest, but I don't consider myself "enlightened." Nor do I think I "have it all figured out." One of the things I like about (my) atheism is the uncertainty. The fact that I actually don't have a problem doing "I don't know" to something. And similar to Zak, a good old fashioned search for truth.

One of these days I should take up that somebody's post a while back and describe how I wound up where I am today.

Archbio

01-30-2007, 04:05 PM

I simply find it interesting that atheists often refer to themselves as "enlightened". I'd like for an atheist to explain what makes them any more enlightened than someone who believes in God

Just reading the introduction of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) might give you a clue. I mean, if you were really looking for an answer, that is, and weren't just itching for a pretext to call people arrogant.

Funka Genocide

01-30-2007, 04:23 PM

ZAKtheGeek

01-30-2007, 05:52 PM

Sometimes I do feel pretty clever being an atheist among a world of so many theists... Kinda sad, really. From a number of perspectives.

Now, I'm a 20 year old athiest, but I don't consider myself "enlightened." Nor do I think I "have it all figured out." One of the things I like about (my) atheism is the uncertainty. The fact that I actually don't have a problem doing "I don't know" to something.
The wise man knows he is not wise.

42PETUNIAS

01-30-2007, 06:53 PM

Literal disability, something i could probably have coasted by the rest of my life on. But that would make only work for me, and i have other people to be concerned with.

I don't want to press farther than I should, but it seems you are dancing around the real question I am asking. Which disability?

And while i could happily quote examples of extranormal and paranormal things i felt ive experienced, it would be pointless. At some points you either have to go look for yourself or stick your thumbs in your ears and pretend its not there.

Well, this is a discussion thread. To me, that implies that everyone should be fully explaining their viewpoint as convincingly as possible. Coming here to simply state your viewpoint without supporting evidence, and then explaining your lack of evidence for "you have to experience it gor yourself" is contrary to the idea of a discussion.

I simply find it interesting that atheists often refer to themselves as "enlightened". I'd like for an atheist to explain what makes them any more enlightened than someone who believes in God... because there's an awful lot of wise, intelligent, self-aware people that believe in God for me to think that a 20 year old atheist is enlightened and others are not. In fact, it seems awfully arrogant to me.
Well, first of all, I don't consider myself enlightened in the least. Hell, I consider myself somewhere between atheist and agnostic, so while I believe that there isn't a god, and the universe operates completly by scientific means, I know that I could be wrong, and that there is no way to disprove the existence of a god. I don't consider myself enlightened, but I do think that my viewpoint is right, just like everyone else. Oh, and Archbio did raise a really really good point.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-30-2007, 09:27 PM

Just reading the introduction of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) might give you a clue. I mean, if you were really looking for an answer, that is, and weren't just itching for a pretext to call people arrogant.

I didn't call anybody arrogant. I said it seemed arrogant to me to if someone said they were enlightened... so I was calling a train of thought without saying anybody here followed that train of thought arrogant. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with me there. I said it also seems arrogant to say that a "theist" is less enlightened than an "atheist", especially since thats very unprovable, highly debatable, and seems to be a red herring fallacy in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint. Atheits believe only rational logic can give answers, and its impossible to come to that conclusion using logic.

Also, your article doesn't say at any point "atheism = enlightenment". It doesn't even say that "theism = unenlightened". It merely says that the Age of Enlightenment is due to the rise of reason and rational thought. Again, I'm sure you wouldn't disagree that there are plenty of rational, reasoning theists out there... In fact, your the list of "enlightened" figures in the article contains quite a few theists.

So really, your article explained nothing.

ZAKtheGeek

01-30-2007, 10:18 PM

You've answered it yourself:
Atheits believe only rational logic can give answers
...and, since, as the Wikipedia article points out, the Age of Enlightenment was all about considering things rationally, some atheists think of themselves as "enlightened."

Furthermore...
Atheits believe only rational logic can give answers, and its impossible to come to that conclusion using logic.
What conclusion exactly? The existence of deities isn't a strong falsehood, but in light of a lack of evidence, it is a foolhardy assumption.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-30-2007, 10:52 PM

What conclusion exactly? The existence of deities isn't a strong falsehood, but in light of a lack of evidence, it is a foolhardy assumption.

I'll modify my original statement. SOME atheists believe logic and reason are the only way to draw conclusions, but then again so do some theists. The conclusion I refered to is simply that its flawed to say that non-atheists can't be just as enlightened, so don't get hung up on that statement. Look back at that list in that article. A significant number of those people were theists, and it is wholely possible to come to a belief in God via logic as well. As with any logical argument it depends on your premises. If one starts off thinking that the universe could not have come about by itself (which just as plausible as it coming about by itself), one might find themselves more logically inclined to belief in a God. Is that any less rational than coming to the conclusion there is no God? I seriously doubt it. I said atheists believe only in rational thought, yes, but I didn't say theists didn't. I know a couple of Christian guys who could likely own most people on this forum in a debate. The thing is we have rational and irrational theists, and there are rational and irrational atheists. Both might use logic to draw seperate conclusions. And it is interesting to note that only atheists use the term "enlightenment" to describe atheism... because that article doesn't. As I said before, its really just an attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints by implying their own viewpoint is superior in the onset... so I think therefore it is used inaccurately.

I'm perfectly willing to admit there are rational, logical atheists. But there are some atheists who believe it is impossible to be logical and rational yet believe in a God. And to be honest, I think thats not very fair or accurate, and somewhat insulting. Thats all I'm saying.

Ryanderman

01-30-2007, 10:56 PM

Atheits believe only rational logic can give answers, and its impossible to come to that conclusion using logic.
What conclusion exactly? The existence of deities isn't a strong falsehood, but in light of a lack of evidence, it is a foolhardy assumption.
I would assert the possibility that it is impossible to conclude that only logic is valid, using logic. You can't use a system of analysis to prove itself. So the conclusion that "only rational logic can give answers" is, by definition not logical. It's not necessarily false, but it's just as much an assumption as is faith.
EDIT: I was ninja'd by the Swordchuck's He said what he means better than I could.

ZAKtheGeek

01-30-2007, 11:07 PM

The conclusion I refered to is simply that its flawed to say that non-atheists can't be just as enlightened, so don't get hung up on that statement. Look back at that list in that article. A significant number of those people were theists, and it is wholely possible to come to a belief in God via logic as well. As with any logical argument it depends on your premises.
...
And it is interesting to note that only atheists use the term "enlightenment" to describe atheism... because that article doesn't. As I said before, its really just an attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints by implying their own viewpoint is superior in the onset... so I think therefore it is used inaccurately.
If that's the context you hear it used in, then okay, that makes sense. All you actually wrote at first is that you hear atheists calling themselves enlightened, from which I didn't assume they meant theists were unenlightened or anything like that.

I would assert the possibility that it is impossible to conclude that only logic is valid, using logic. You can't use a system of analysis to prove itself. So the conclusion that "only rational logic can give answers" is, by definition not logical. It's not necessarily false, but it's just as much an assumption as is faith.
Oh, I know. Now it is time to search this thread and quote myself...
It can be your belief that science is greater then religion, that logic trumps faith, but how is this different from someone who believes faith trumps logic, which their belief system is greater then your 'scientific' beliefs on how one should live?
That's simple. Logic is the core of mathematics and of science. The only reason we're even communicating with each other is because of people's power for rational assessment. Good or bad, you cannot deny that, objectively, logic works. It's proven itself to work through thousands of years of scientific advancement, through principles and laws logically concluded by man from empirical observations; principles and laws which have been successfully used, and can be successfully used (today! even by you!) to predict the outcomes of various actions given some pieces of prior knowledge.

What I'm saying is that, through logic and observation alone, we've been unraveling the very functions of everything around us, in concrete, mathematical terms, with absolutely proven results. That's what I put my faith in.

Ryanderman

01-31-2007, 12:07 AM

That's not being disputed. But the conclusion that only logic is valid is. Logic has been proved to the extent it can be. Which is pretty damn much. But the conclusion that only logic is valid is not logical. That's all. And since the topic's been covered already, I'm not going to debate it any more.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 12:11 AM

Hm, I see, that's interesting. At the same time, you're using such vague terms that I still don't know exactly what you're talking about...

Death by Stabbing

01-31-2007, 12:17 AM

Faith and logic aren't trying to trump each other...they are trying to work together

First of all...Logic is subjective. There for who's to say what's logical...everything is made up.

Second logic and faith can go hand in hand...sure there are some inconcistances in some faith's Dogma...but who the hell cares it's about believing.

Considering what some of the people in this thread who proclaim themselves to be athiests say...apparently love doesn't exist because it's just a feeling. God is also a feeling...but logically there would have to be a higher order to the galaxy...whether he can hear us or not doesn't matter...what matters is that in the world where shit is flying all over the place and there's hardly any cover...we all need to believe

And we all believe in something...

If we can't believe in a higher power or a place for our soul or whatever your religion or personal beliefs are...then what can we believe in?

DBS

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 12:22 AM

Faith and logic aren't trying to trump each other...they are trying to work together
The basis for the whole argument is what happens when they disagree. Some new evidence has us logically deriving one thing, yet old, traditional faith says something totally different. Who do we believe? Historically, logic is the winner, yet the exact sort of problematic intersections continue to occur today.

Archbio

01-31-2007, 03:58 AM

I_Like_Swordchucks,

So really, your article explained nothing.

I said it might "give you a clue" as to why certain atheists use the word "enlightened".

And it does.

I didn't call anybody arrogant.

It wasn't a direct personal attack, no, but for it's lack of substance and relevance to this Religious Discussion or any discussion on the topic of religion, it basically boils down to a broadly cast insult, yes.

I said it seemed arrogant to me to if someone said they were enlightened

No, you said it seemed arrogant when present day atheists do it. If you think that anyone calling themselves enlightened (including the religious) is arrogant, then, while I wouldn't agree, I could at least respect that as a coherent opinion.

I said it also seems arrogant to say that a "theist" is less enlightened than an "atheist"

I think that definition of enlightenened never excluded theism outright, and no amount of present day atheists identifying with it will change that. It might seem to mean that we agree on this, but no, we don't. Atheism isn't a belief system.

seems to be a red herring fallacy in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint

It's not a fallacy by itself. It's a fallacy when it's brought up in a discussion or debate as an argument: which is what you did, precisely as a red herring and an attempt to discredit.

Also, your article doesn't say at any point "atheism = enlightenment". It doesn't even say that "theism = unenlightened".

"My" article doesn't say that, and I never claimed it did. That's all your assumptions, and yours alone. I'm not going to try and dissect all of them. Many of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenement tended to make a distinction between notions such as "philosophical theism" and "superstitious religion", by the way. I think a lot of atheists actually do. I'm certain a lot of atheist also understand that Enlightenement isn't a direct synonym of atheism, even if they consider themselves both atheists and enlightened, and that their enlightenement is incompatible with religion.

But how does that matter: it's not the "atheist opinion" you've decided to prop up.

Anybody Who Uses This And Thinks It's Novel,

You can't use a system of analysis to prove itself. So the conclusion that "only rational logic can give answers" is, by definition not logical. It's not necessarily false, but it's just as much an assumption as is faith.

See, you're using logic, still. Do I have the option to simply opt out of accepting your argument on the basis that it's logic? If I do, just how credible would my rebuttal be?

Try and rephrase this argument and use another "system of analysis". See if it retains any demonstrative power.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 07:23 AM

I said it might "give you a clue" as to why certain atheists use the word "enlightened".

And it does.

Sooo... let me get this straight. The article doesn't say, or imply, that atheism is enlightened. Nor does it imply that theism is not enlightened. Yet it is still supposed to give me a clue as to why atheism is "enlightened". I think not. You're going to have to do better than just saying "yes it does", because that doesn't hold up.

It wasn't a direct personal attack, no, but for it's lack of substance and relevance to this Religious Discussion or any discussion on the topic of religion, it basically boils down to a broadly cast insult, yes.

Ahh... I apologize for implying that individuals who thinks of their ideology as superior to somebody else's ideology is arrogant. Clearly they are not. However, if I feel that they are, I have the right to think that.

No, you said it seemed arrogant when present day atheists do it. If you think that anyone calling themselves enlightened (including the religious) is arrogant, then, while I wouldn't agree, I could at least respect that as a coherent opinion.

Well thanks for respecting that as a coherent opinion. I think anybody considering themselves more enlightened has a bit of arrogance about them, its just that I hear atheists use the term much more often. And that would be what we were discussing. So I fail to see the problem here.

It's not a fallacy by itself. It's a fallacy when it's brought up in a discussion or debate as an argument: which is what you did, precisely as a red herring and an attempt to discredit.

.......... zuh? How did I attempt to discredit atheism? I never presented it as less that an equally rational viewpoint to theism, I merely said it was fallicious to refer to themselves as enlightened. So... you just made absolutely no sense, and you clearly don't understand at all what I'm saying. I'm pretty sure the rest of the folk here didn't feel discredited by what I said.

"My" article doesn't say that, and I never claimed it did. That's all your assumptions, and yours alone. I'm not going to try and dissect all of them. Many of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenement tended to make a distinction between notions such as "philosophical theism" and "superstitious religion", by the way. I think a lot of atheists actually do. I'm certain a lot of atheist also understand that Enlightenement isn't a direct synonym of atheism, even if they consider themselves both atheists and enlightened, and that their enlightenement is incompatible with religion.

Then we don't have a problem do we? If rational atheism is merely one aspect of enlightenment in modern society, and rational theism is another aspect, they shouldn't feel the need to constantly being it up in debates. Which they do bring it up in debates. So then it is a red herring fallacy. Which means I'm right. So why are you arguing with me?

Archbio

01-31-2007, 07:49 AM

I_Like_Swordchucks

Ahh... I apologize for implying that individuals who thinks of their ideology as superior to somebody else's ideology is arrogant. Clearly they are not. However, if I feel that they are, I have the right to think that.

Yes, you sure do, but that's also pretty irrelevant.

Sooo... let me get this straight. The article doesn't say, or imply, that atheism is enlightened. Nor does it imply that theism is not enlightened. Yet it is still supposed to give me a clue as to why atheism is "enlightened". I think not. You're going to have to do better than just saying "yes it does", because that doesn't hold up.

What I wrote was a clear, one line sentence.

I said it might "give you a clue" as to why certain atheists use the word "enlightened".

I think there's something you're missing here.

Also, since atheism isn't incompatible with the Enlightenement as defined (and that you agree), I don't see why I have to demonstrate that atheists calling themselves Enlightened isn't "fallacious".

I think anybody considering themselves more enlightened has a bit of arrogance about them, its just that I hear atheists use the term much more often. And that would be what we were discussing. So I fail to see the problem here.

The religious (not the particular subset of theists that's more presentable philosophically) have a plethora of other words to underline the supposed special status of their beliefs.

"What we were discussing"? You're the one who brought it up, attached to your own negatively charged interpretation of it, that you now freely contradict by agreeing that atheism and philosophical theism are not incompatible with a worldview worthy of the name enlightened, which kind of renders getting worked up over the use of the name rather misplaced, more than it was to begin with.

.......... zuh? How did I attempt to discredit atheism? I never presented it as less that an equally rational viewpoint to theism, I merely said it was fallicious to refer to themselves as enlightened. So... you just made absolutely no sense, and you clearly don't understand at all what I'm saying.

I don't understand what you're saying? It's clearly the opposite. You used atheists' use of the word Enlightened in a discussion and attributed to it a negative moral quality: arrogance. A discussion in which the word wasn't used in that way, as far as I know, despite the presence of several atheists.

But maybe I don't understand what you're saying, because you're pretty much arguing against a position that's known to yourself only. At one point you seem to be saying that atheists merely using the name Enlightened is fallacious and arrogant, and at other times it seem that you must be referencing a debate tactic that involves pointing out that only atheists are enlightened, specifically excluding philosophic theists. Maybe they only pointed out that they were Enlightened compared to some poor religious debater, in which case I'd approve.

It still seems to me that the gist of your original comment was "atheists have a tendency to be arrogant".

Then we don't have a problem do we? If rational atheism is merely one aspect of enlightenment in modern society, and rational theism is another aspect, they shouldn't feel the need to constantly being it up in debates. Which they do bring it up in debates. So then it is a red herring fallacy. Which means I'm right. So why are you arguing with me?

There are no words.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 09:10 AM

The question is, why are you arguing with me, instead of debating with these other mean old atheists?

You have so much to teach them.

I asked a question in THIS forum why some atheists use the word enlightenment to describe their worldview. I didn't find your wikipedia based answer satisfactory, and your rationale behind your disagreement with me seems to be simply "I disagree with you" which also doesn't help at all. Get over it.

But on another another tangent, I feel a pressing need to discussing to make a clear distinction here. I keep seeing "rational thought", "logic", and "science". So just to clear things up, and everybody is using the same definitions here, I'm going to do a small Logic 101 lesson.

First of all, there are two basic types of reasoning. Deductive (more affectionately referred to as logic) and inductive.

Deductive reasoning, or logic, follows along arguments similar to this:

I am a man.
All men eventually die.
Conclusion: I will eventually die.

The basis behind logic is that if all premises are true, then the conclusion must therefore be true. Logical fallacies arise from situations where the premises do not lead to a solid conclusion. For instance:

You believe in the pink unicorn.
You are an insane person.
Conclusion: The pink unicorn does not exist.

This is a logical fallacy. First of all, both premises can be true without the conclusion being true Many similar arguments either attempts to improve one's own argument using a self-compliment, or diminish an opposing viewpoint by attacking it.

Of course, logical arguments need not be true. For instance:

Cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
Animals with horns are dangerous.
Dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

Logically, my argument is rock solid. It's indisputable as a deductive process. However, the whole basis of a true conclusion requires that the premises be true. So when a certain group (either theists or atheists) make a logical argument, a simple dispute over the accuracy of the premises is enough to make the conclusion fall. In a previous post I said that a theist may start the argument thinking "the universe could not have come about by itself", and the atheist might think "the universe could have come about by itself". As both of these premises are equal in terms of provability, both conclusions might be equally logically valid, in spite of being opposite. Logic in of itself, while a powerful method of thought, might actually prove very little.

Now the second method of thought... on contrary to popular belief on this forum, science is neither deductive nor logical. The entire scientific method is inductive reasoning, relying on probability and sample size.

Inductive reasoning requires seeing a pattern, and drawing conclusions based off this pattern. For instance:

COX2 inhibitor drugs cured 1000 out of 1000 people.
Conclusion: COX2 inhibitor drugs should be used.

Its a probability game. As it turned out in the real world, once COX2 inhibitor drugs were mass marketed, a certain percentage people were killed by them due to fatal arrhythmias. The thing about inductive reasoning is that even if all the premises are true, the conclusion might not necessarily be true. This is why science papers and experiments all require statistics. The p-value you see at the end of the paper is the probability that all the data generated in the research is somehow flawed. This value is often very small, but the possibility is always there, meaning it is not logic being used (logic has a 100% chance of being true if the premises are true).

In the defense of an Masters or Ph.D, the defendant is often asked "how do you know for sure if your conclusions are correct?" The correct answer is: "I don't, but this was the best guess I could come up with." This is not to say the conclusions aren't LIKELY to be true... it just means that they COULD be wrong. And any self-respecting scientist would say there's a small chance that every conclusion he's ever drawn has been wrong.

So there we have it. Both inductive and deductive reasoning are fallible, and are very different. When you say "I believe in science and logic", be aware that 95% of science has a complete absence of logic, and 95% of logic has a complete absence of science. Science and logic only draw conclusions as good as the premises, and premises are highly subject to interpretation by the individual. In that sense, theism might actually be just as scientific and logical as atheism, and even if it isn't thats okay, because no scientific or logical argument is inherently true.

Thus ends my rant.

Archbio

01-31-2007, 09:14 AM

I asked a question in THIS forum why some atheists use the word enlightenment to describe their worldview. I didn't find your wikipedia based answer satisfactory

Of course. Why would you prefer it to the answer already firmly lodged in your "question"?

In that sense, theism might actually be just as scientific and logical as atheism, and even if it isn't thats okay, because no scientific or logical argument is inherently true.

So theism is true because you say so. Fascinating.

In a previous post I said that a theist may start the argument thinking "the universe could not have come about by itself", and the atheist might think "the universe could have come about by itself". As both of these premises are equal in terms of provability, both conclusions might be equally logically valid, in spite of being opposite. Logic in of itself, while a powerful method of thought, might actually prove very little.

I'd agree with this particular bit if only for a little flaw in phrasing. The statement equivalent to "the universe could have come about by itself" isn't "the universe couldn't have come about by itself".

"The universe could have come about by itself" merely suggests a possibility. Having no real data to rule it out, it's possible by default.

"The universe couldn't have come about by itself" rules out a possibility where there's no data that rules it out. It's an argument from ignorance and a bigger claim than the previous.

I'm not sure what the equivalent theist statement would be.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 10:21 AM

So theism is true because you say so. Fascinating.

Again, I'm pretty sure most people here other than you doesn't see where I even remotely implied that, much less said it. Even what you quoted of me doesn't imply that, it merely implies that something doesn't have to be scientific and logical to be true, as many times both science and logic are wrong. So I really would appreciate it if you ceased with the putting of the words in my mouth, because you're doing it a lot, and you're actually just making yourself look bad.

I'd agree with this particular bit if only for a little flaw in phrasing. The statement equivalent to "the universe could have come about by itself" isn't "the universe couldn't have come about by itself".

"The universe could have come about by itself" merely suggests a possibility. Having no real data to rule it out, it's possible by default.

"The universe couldn't have come about by itself" rules out a possibility where there's no data that rules it out. It's an argument from ignorance and a bigger claim than the previous.

I'm not sure what the equivalent theist statement would be.

The claims are two logical opposites. "Some A" vs "No A". "All A" vs "No A" is a contrary claim, not a contradictory one. Thats why I worded it that way. Both premises can't be true, and both premises can't be false. In actuality the atheist claim is "the universe came about by itself", is it not? Isn't that also ruling out a possibility? What I actually gave was an agnostic claim, which believes either side could potentially be possible. And in fact, you're doing nothing more arguing semantics over what was intended to be a simple illustration.

And even if you think one premise is "ignorant", your argument is meaningless and does nothing to detract from what wasn't even an argument, but merely an example of how logic can be used to arrive at two different conclusions. The logic of each conclusion may be solid, though each premise may or may not be true. I don't care which premise you think is more likely, because as I said, thats subjective. And given the evidence, either premise COULD be true, despite the whatever probability you think of each.

That last post of mine wasn't something to be debated. There is no debate there. It is merely defining deductive versus inductive reasoning, and how it applies to science, atheism, and theism. It was not saying anything was wrong or right, or making any outrageous claims, so again I tell you... get over it.

Archbio

01-31-2007, 10:55 AM

It was not saying anything was wrong or right, or making any outrageous claims, so again I tell you... get over it.

Get over what, exactly, you've said it twice, and now with how it's placed in your post I'm really wondering what I'm not over.

You're getting excessively defensive.

You're misinterpreting the third portion of my post. It's more or less a minor disagreement. But since you expressed the notion that you're not interested in input on this and possibly on several other questions, I'm not going to bother clarifying much.

I was going in much the same direction than the statement I was quoting, with the exception that I was disagreeing with the choice of theist argument. The former precludes that I was going to make a big show of favoring one possibility over the other.

I said "argument by ignorance", not that something or someone was "ignorant".

In actuality the atheist claim is "the universe came about by itself", is it not? Isn't that also ruling out a possibility?

There's no single atheist claim on this question, as far as I'm aware, but no, it doesn't rule out a possibility. It suggests a possibility. Of course, if that possibility would be true, all other possibilities that aren't compatible would be ruled out.

But that's not what the possibility does.

On the other hand, when you phrase something as "this isn't possible", a bigger claim is made, a claim that demands more data to justify than just stating that something could be possible. You could reverse the assymmetry in the examples and I still would have commented on it ("there couldn't be a god" as a false equivalent to "there could be a god").

I suggested that there was a better theist equivalent to the atheist statement you gave, not that the theist example wasn't equivalent by virtue of being theistic.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 11:24 AM

The first get over it was because you kept proposing the wikipedia article as support for atheism as a form of enlightenment, which it doesn't.

The second get over it was to stop nitpicking at a small detail in an example that neither damages nor changes the example, nor the point at which I was getting it.

Here are four premises:
1. The universe came about by itself. "A"
2. The universe may have come about by itself. "Some A"
3. The universe may not have come about by itself. "Some not A"
4. The universe could not have come about by itself. "Not A"

I'm going to assume that your point was that you want to use premises 2 and 3 in the example, and thats fine. But if I used premises 1 and 4, or 2 and 4, or 1 and 3 the point being made is unaffected.

Fifthfiend

01-31-2007, 11:40 AM

Any time I want to remind myself why this thread is unmoderated, I read any three posts in this thread.

"Get over yourself"! You guys, I could just hug you to death.

Incidentally

Of course, logical arguments need not be true. For instance:

Cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
Animals with horns are dangerous.
Dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

Uh no, you just fucked up your logic. Check lines three and four, and try again.

Funka Genocide

01-31-2007, 11:50 AM

I simply find it interesting that atheists often refer to themselves as "enlightened". I'd like for an atheist to explain what makes them any more enlightened than someone who believes in God... because there's an awful lot of wise, intelligent, self-aware people that believe in God for me to think that a 20 year old atheist is enlightened and others are not. In fact, it seems awfully arrogant to me.

Let's start at the beginning of this fracasse to try and determine exactly what you mean. You see, using deductive reasoning all I can assume is exactly what is stated. That you find it interesting that atheists often refer to themselves as (quotation marks!) and that this seems awfully arrogant to you.

However, all this really illustrates is your personal opinion, which means very little in the grand scheme of things, however through these opinions we can garner a few more details based on general human interaction and probable motivation. You feel atheism is incorrect and consider yourself more correct. That much is obvious, and you don't want to go so far as to propose an alternative statement, all you're trying to do is cast doubt on the initial statement.

It's an obvious debate tactic, but debate has little to do with an actual argument. Arguments are proposed to prove a thesis, debates are construed to prove a person is wrong or right.

So why keep beating around the bush? In the one unmoderated portion of this forum where you can say whatever you want about the topic you're still playing it safe, trying to out-reason or out-manipulate. What's the point? What do you truly believe in the first place?

What is logic? A process used to make life easier to handle, as the complexities compile it's becomes impossible to maintain that many variables in a globalistic mental construct, we have to resort to an analytical process eventually. This is the natural basis of logic, and I might add the main reason we are the dominant mammalian species on the planet.

Now let's look at the root of this matter, religion. Religions is wrong.

See how I just came out and said it? Watch, here I go again.

Religion is social construct that evolved out of the human necessity for answers, which in itself was a byproduct of an increased capacity for cogitation.

How do I know this? Well, as you've said it's inductive reasoning. I could illustrate all the main points and stereotypical realizations one should come to in order to make the process of transitioning from one viewpoint to another more accessible, but the information is obvious.

Man develops an improved mental capacity, giving rise to the advent of functional sentience. With the knowledge of self on levels never before obtained by any other organism comes all manner of strange phenomena. Fear of mortality becoming more than an instinctual response, but an obsession with the potential of disastrous species wide damage. With our ability to understand came psychological fear, and thusly the necessity for appeasement on a large level.

Can you see what I'm getting at here? Loom at the obvious natural evidence if you think I'm just whistling Dixie, burials go back tens of thousands of years, long before the Jews were even a forethought. Religion is an obvious social evolution process, and faith is an integral part of the human experience.

However, in this age of burgeoning enlightenment it becomes apparent that we know too much to keep fooling ourselves. Theists maintain their beliefs out of tradition, personal comfort and a sense of duty to their forbearers and descendants, a misguided sense of duty. Look at yourself, take an honest look. How many concessions have you made to the modern outlook? do you still truly believe the Earth was flooded and two of every animal on earth were stationed in an ark? Do you still believe that the earth was created in seven days, that woman was made from Adam's rib and that man was cast from paradise because he was thinking with his dick? Do you still think history began some four thousand years ago and that Christ rose from the dead? I mean really believe all of this happened, not just the standard answer that "of course I believe, I'm Christian" I mean in your head, in those places where nobody ever looks, can you look at yourself straight and swallow the lie without so much as a wince?

And what of the morals and ethics of the bible? What of the second class status of women, what of all the ridiculous Old Testament rules for butchery? What about the obvious nature of Christianity itself, just an add on to an old religion, an obvious reform for times just like these, when people were trying to become more enlightened than their predecessors. Read it, look at the difference, The Jews go from being God's chosen people, a warlike and driven race into being these feel good hippies that let everyone in. That's not divine providence, that's marketing.

But you don't have to answer this, because I know that no one raised in modern society and given all the facts we're brought up with could possibly truly think any of these things were true on a purely logical level, no you're forced to "believe" which in this case is just another word for "lie to yourself."

religion is a perversion of faith, faith is the ability to believe in something, to hope your desires become manifest. You can have faith in something real its easy. I believe in myself, I believe in other people, I believe in the Lakers, and sure these things might let me down, but that's the beauty of true faith. You know it's fallible but you believe in it anyways.

But God? That's not fallible, that's cowardice. Isn't that the old standby defense? You can't disprove god. Doesn�t that strike you as awfully convenient? You can't touch the face of god, hell it's even written into the bible that if you see it you die instantly, tell me that's not a fail safe. But you can touch the face of a human being, and theists scoff at faith in man?

How backwards can you be?

The point is that you can argue the minutiae of a simple statement or an personal distaste for arrogance all you want, but you can't deny the way the human mind works. Religion is a security blanket, get over it.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 12:30 PM

Uh no, you just fucked up your logic. Check lines three and four, and try again.

Uh no, I didn't. You may disagree with line 3 and 4, but that has nothing to do with logic. In fact, I also disagree with line 3 and 4.

Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

As you can see, my argument was deductively sound. The keyword is IF you accepted all my premises, my conclusion was undeniably true. That doesn't mean my premises HAVE to be true. If you disagree with my premise, yes, you may also disagree with the conclusion, but you can't say my line of reasoning wasn't logical.

Hence my point... when you use logic to come to a conclusion, disagreeing with only ONE of your premises may lead me to reject your conclusion. To reiterate, an atheist might base a part of his argument on "the universe could have come about on its own". If I reject that premise as true, I may reject his ultimate conclusion that God does not exist. It does not mean his argument was not logical, as it may have been sound logic. There may not have been any fallacies in his reasoning. But if I don't agree with the premises, I have no reason to accept that conclusion.

Hence my post trying to highlight the failures in logic. You dismissed a soundly logical argument as an illogical one merely because you disagreed with it. Thats not what logic is.

Also... I said "get over it" referring to a specific point he was getting hung up on, not "get over yourself".

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 12:32 PM

How many posts does it take to get to the semantic argument in the Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion?

About 420. Interesting.

However, the whole basis of a true conclusion requires that the premises be true. So when a certain group (either theists or atheists) make a logical argument, a simple dispute over the accuracy of the premises is enough to make the conclusion fall. In a previous post I said that a theist may start the argument thinking "the universe could not have come about by itself", and the atheist might think "the universe could have come about by itself". As both of these premises are equal in terms of provability, both conclusions might be equally logically valid, in spite of being opposite. Logic in of itself, while a powerful method of thought, might actually prove very little.
So we can debate our postulations. Personally, I'd be happy with that. Anybody else? Show of hands? It'd be a welcome step forward over the usual, "You can't disprove my faith!"

To that end,
In a previous post I said that a theist may start the argument thinking "the universe could not have come about by itself", and the atheist might think "the universe could have come about by itself". As both of these premises are equal in terms of provability, both conclusions might be equally logically valid, in spite of being opposite.
As I've written earlier, by laws of conservation, the universe can't have had a beginning. I'm not just stating this arbitrarily, I'm deriving it from observed laws. Many theists claim the universe "began" when it was created by their respective god, and challenge atheists to explain how else it could have began. Enter option 3!

Now, if a theist wants to argue that an eternal universe (in both directions) was somehow created by a god, we could talk about that. I certainly can't imagine how that's possible, but with a transcendental being, I can't rule it out. Or it could be claimed that first the universe was created and then its governing laws took effect. That'd be a starting place for a theist's overall argument (unless a creator is all they were arguing, in which case there's little room for discussion as it's an academic distinction) but they've certainly a long way to go.

What was I trying to point out, again?

Oh, right. Argument over assumptions would be fine and healthy. In my experience, theists seem to heap additional postulates onto the things people already automatically assume, anyway...

Fifthfiend

01-31-2007, 12:55 PM

Uh no, I didn't. You may disagree with line 3 and 4, but that has nothing to do with logic. In fact, I also disagree with line 3 and 4.

No, you just fucked up the logic.

Cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
Animals with horns are dangerous.
Dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

In lines three or four you're implying either a 'some' or an 'all' without stating either. As such the proof is structurally broken.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 12:59 PM

No, you just fucked up the logic.

In lines three or four you're implying either a 'some' or an 'all' without stating either. As such the proof is structurally broken.

All cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
All horned animals are dangerous.
All dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

Happy?

Funka Genocide

01-31-2007, 01:03 PM

I know this is an unmoderated, lawless, godless portion of the forums, but Jesus Christ! What the fuck do ungulates have to do with religion?

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 01:07 PM

I know this is an unmoderated, lawless, godless portion of the forums, but Jesus Christ! What the fuck do ungulates have to do with religion?

Because it was a part of an example of mine to show that logic isn't perfect... therefore why one might think its possible to believe through things other than logic. And it was intended to be a bit light hearted. Like a joke. Remember those? However, fifthfiend killed the joke through over-analysis.

42PETUNIAS

01-31-2007, 01:08 PM

*Completly goes out and says what I (and probably other people too) have been thinking, except in far better words.* Thank you. This would also be interesting to have I Like Swordcucks (as the only pro-religon person currently posting) comment on what you said.

All cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
All horned animals are dangerous.
All dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

But clearly not all horned animals are dangerous. If you're going to use an example, at least use one that makes sense.

Funka Genocide

01-31-2007, 01:18 PM

Because it was a part of an example of mine to show that logic isn't perfect... therefore why one might think its possible to believe through things other than logic. And it was intended to be a bit light hearted. Like a joke. Remember those? However, fifthfiend killed the joke through over-analysis.

well, to be fair it was an attempt to make a point masquerading as a joke, much like my onw comment was. Notice the irony in word choice?

and that point has been lost in the ensuing semantics war. It's a pointless diatribe on the realities of bovine genocide, and really serves no further purpose in furthering an ongoing discussion of human belief systems, that's the only point I meant to make.

I thought it was kind of funny though, to be honest.

Fifthfiend

01-31-2007, 01:21 PM

I know this is an unmoderated, lawless, godless portion of the forums, but Jesus Christ! What the fuck do ungulates have to do with religion?

Well, there's Hindus.

All cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
All horned animals are dangerous.
All dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

Well yes. Your previous version was simply impossible to argue against.

This version is at least falsifiable, and can be tested. So let's test it. Is there a subset of horned animals which are not dangerous? Yes there is - the common dairy cow. Therefore, all horned animals are not dangerous, and thus, all cows should not be killed.

See? Logic!

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 01:22 PM

Thank you. This would also be interesting to have I Like Swordcucks (as the only pro-religon person currently posting)

Um I don't get what you mean there. Could you clarify please?

But clearly not all horned animals are dangerous. If you're going to use an example, at least use one that makes sense.

-_-;

Yes... I understand that not all horned animals are dangerous... I was trying to illustrate that logic doesn't have to be right, or even sensible, to be logically sound.

I could have said all quiks are quarks, and all quarks are quacks, so therefore all quiks are quacks. Again, solid logic, but totally stupid... but if you want a sensible one...

Killing an innocent person is murder.
Murder is wrong.
Fetuses are innocent people.
Abortion is killing fetuses.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong.

Again logically sound... the debate rises as to whether statement 3 is an acceptible premise. (Note fifthfiend - I did not use 'all' or 'some' any here, but its still a cohesive argument.) So there we are... a logically sound argument that may or may not be true. The same can be applied to both theism and atheism, as many of the premises involved in both are debatable.

Archbio

01-31-2007, 01:26 PM

See? Logic!

Reality fuelled logic, you mean.

And no, we can't have that.

Also, you could also say that the logic exercice fails because its terms are ill-defined.

Also... I said "get over it" referring to a specific point he was getting hung up on, not "get over yourself".

Wrong pronoun. Two specific points. One point I only commented on once before you told me to "get over it" and repeated and reformulated your own opinion on that point in a handy, highschool logic textbook format, thereby not "getting over it".

Fifthfiend

01-31-2007, 01:28 PM

Note fifthfiend - I did not use 'all' or 'some' any here, but its still a cohesive argument.

Actually no, it's not. Here, I don't have to go past line one.

Killing an innocent person is murder.

The killing of an innocent person can be a whole number of things including but by no means limited to murder. Yes, some killing is murder, but all killing is not murder. Therefore the rest of the proof absolutely does not follow.

Logic, again!

Krylo

01-31-2007, 01:35 PM

So then, Swordchucks, you're saying that the failure of religion is not a logical one, but rather that the religious just really suck at facts?

Because that seems to be what I'm getting here, considering the only way you can make your 'logic can be wrong' statements work is by stating blatantly false premises and then continuing along that line of thought.

adamark

01-31-2007, 01:36 PM

I disagree that killing is wrong.
I disagree that murder is wrong.
I disagree that people can be "innocent."
I disagree that "wrong" even exists.

All of these ideas about rights, innocense, goodness, wrongness--are based on beliefs. No one can convince me that any of it is true!

Funka Genocide

01-31-2007, 01:37 PM

Well, there's Hindus.

Shit, you got me.

That reminds me of a recent trip I took to Mumbai India. I saw a bunch of scraggly looking cows just walking around the streets unmolested. I saw a lot of underfed, naked children wallowing in pools of brackish water by the roadside as well.

Here's a nifty little logical construct for you then.

cows are sacred
that which is sacred is inviolable
that which is inviolable should not be eaten
Indian children are malnourished

That should be enough information to get the point across, don't you think? What if your children were starving and a cow wandered by, would you think twice before slaughtering it for the survival of your family?

This is an illustration of the ridiculous nature of religion, look at this foreign example. I'll bet dollars to rupees that a Christian reading this reacts involuntarily by scoffing. How could such a travesty be allowed to occur? How could people be so ignorant?

Now look at the malnourishment of your own psyche, and think how I must look at you.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-31-2007, 01:40 PM

The killing of an innocent person can be a whole number of things including but by no means limited to murder. Yes, some killing is murder, but all killing is not murder. Therefore the rest of the proof absolutely does not follow.

And this makes me wrong how? The argument is still logically accurate. You're just proving my point that logically accurate does not necessarily equal right.

LOGICAL DOES NOT EQUAL VALID. LOGICAL EQUALS PROPER ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION, SO ***IF*** ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE. VALID MEANS THAT ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, AND ARGUMENT IS LOGICAL, THEREFORE CONCLUSION IS TRUE.

Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method in deductive reasoning.

And QUIT IT with the I don't understand logic. I've said it many times in this forum before, I did an undergrad double major in biology and philosophy. I did several courses in logic, and got over 95% in every single one of them. I can post my bloody transcript if you want. YOU CAN BE LOGICAL AND STILL BE WRONG, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT WITHOUT LOGIC. How's that???

But either way, I give up. It comes across as impossible to argue with opponents who concede absolutely nothing, dispute absolutely everything, and make statements constantly dripping on condescension, and to be outnumbered besides. Have fun having an inter-atheist debate.

Funka Genocide

01-31-2007, 01:47 PM

And this makes me wrong how? The argument is still logically accurate. You're just proving my point that logically accurate does not necessarily equal right.

But either way, I give up. It comes across as impossible to argue with opponents who concede absolutely nothing, dispute absolutely everything, and make statements constantly dripping on condescension, and to be outnumbered besides. Have fun having an inter-atheist debate.

You just don't understand the meaning of logical, You get the point about the necessity of proper logical construction, but you're palcing too much emphasis on it.

Logic isn't just a stupid phrase game, every statement must be verifiably true for the entire thing to be true, just because a statement is constrcuted correctly doesn't make it true or logical Your examples are meaningless.

look, here's an example

All women are crazy
all crazy people like cheese
All women like cheese

see, properly constructed, but untrue. Not all crazy people like cheese, so it's a false statement.

now look at this one

all women are human
all human's are mammals
all women are mammals

see, this is true and thusly logical.

All I mean to say is that yous eem to be trying to disprove logic as a relaible method of dscering truth, and I find it funny that you're using logic to do that.

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 02:24 PM

LOGICAL DOES NOT EQUAL VALID. LOGICAL EQUALS PROPER ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION, SO ***IF*** ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE. VALID MEANS THAT ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, AND ARGUMENT IS LOGICAL, THEREFORE CONCLUSION IS TRUE.

Logic does equal proper argument construction. Part of proper argument construction is using solid premises. In other words by using factual statements with no degree of freedom for opinion. Facts are by definition right. Therefore, using a premises that can be argued true or false is not in keeping with proper argument construction and therefore illogical.

Logic example:
Logic is the science of proper argument construction
Properly constructed arguments consist wholly of indisputable facts
Therefore logic contains only those arguments consisting wholly of indisputable facts.

Further:
Logic contains only those arguments consisting wholly of indisputable facts
Statements that can be taken as either true of false depending on view point are not indisputable
Therefor arguments consisting of statements that can be taken as either true or false are not logical

Edit: Basically in the absence of incontrovertible evidence its impossible to logically conclude anything about God or how the universe came to be.

42PETUNIAS

01-31-2007, 02:26 PM

Um I don't get what you mean there. Could you clarify please?

Fixed, I edited my post.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 02:26 PM

Elminster_Amaur

01-31-2007, 02:31 PM

How 'bout I give one of these a try, 'eh?

Existance exists. (Try to disprove THAT one)
Because of the definition of existance, it is unable to NOT exist.
Therefore, there was neither a beginning or will there be an ending to existance.

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 02:35 PM

Sheesh, this is getting out of hand. There's really nothing to argue about... logical derivations are only as valid as the assumptions you make. A theistic argument might go along the lines of, "There can be no infinite causal chains, therefore the universe must have a first cause," and it would be logical, but you could still argue against the postulated premise that there can be no infinite causal chains.

Sadly untrue. Once again, logic can only be constructed off premises that are not assumptions. IE. if you can't point to actual physical objective proof of your premises then it is not logic. At least not deductive logic.

Your conclusion can lack direct physical proof because you provide that via your premises. So if you wanted to use a logical statement with "There can be no infinite causal chains" you would first have to prove with factual physically provable premises that there can in fact be no infinite causal chains. Then from there you can formulate on top of it.

Edit:
How 'bout I give one of these a try, 'eh?

Existance exists. (Try to disprove THAT one)
Because of the definition of existance, it is unable to NOT exist.
Therefore, there was neither a beginning or will there be an ending to existance.

Your second statements needs to be proved in an undisputable way before that is a statement of logic.

Elminster_Amaur

01-31-2007, 02:46 PM

Your second statements needs to be proved in an undisputable way before that is a statement of logic.But Sith, how can one prove that existance, which we are wholy contained within, can not end? How about I use another logical statement to prove it?

IF everything that exists is contained in existance, (You won't argue with that, right? I'm not saying Universe, I'm saying existance)
AND matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, (I assume you have no problem with this statement)
THEN existence must always exist.

Edit: By "everything" I mean all matter and energy in and outside all Universes.

Krylo

01-31-2007, 02:53 PM

There's actually a logical fallacy called 'false premises' which I was going to bring up if Swordchucks decided to reply to me.

What it states is basically this--if your logic is built off of false premises then it is logically unsound.

In other words--what Funka just said is true. Logic requires sound and verifiable premises in order to actually be called logic.

Example:

All cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
All horned animals are dangerous.--False premise. This is no longer logic.
All dangerous animals should be killed.--Another false premise (as killing all dangerous animals would result in our death due to a fucked up ecosystem). This has been driven even further into illogic.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

Killing an innocent person is murder.--This is a hasty generalization. Killing an innocent person may be manslaughter, criminal negligience, or, as fifth said, a thousand other things.
Murder is wrong.
Fetuses are innocent people.--Contested Premise. You can't use, in a logical arguement, a statement which has not been proven. So, again, there are two forays into illogic in this.
Abortion is killing fetuses.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong.

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 02:53 PM

AND matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, (I assume you have no problem with this statement)
Unfortunately, Hawking's tells us that in under the Planck time matter can be created and destroyed. He went from there to Hawking's Radiation (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html). All really cool stuff.

Oh and I append my last statement logical premises can be either indisputably true or indisputably false to form a logical statement. The key is that there can be no argument over if the statement is true or if it is false.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 03:26 PM

Sadly untrue. Once again, logic can only be constructed off premises that are not assumptions.
What? No. At the core of logic, there must be some things that you can assume, or else you have nothing to derive from. Example: our observations are consistent with reality. This is an assumption. From this we conclude things like if we see something, we know it must exist. Which assumptions one's logic is built up from is something to be argued over and debated.

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 03:39 PM

What? No. At the core of logic, there must be some things that you can assume, or else you have nothing to derive from. Example: our observations are consistent with reality. This is an assumption. From this we conclude things like if we see something, we know it must exist. Which assumptions one's logic is built up from is something to be argued over and debated.

You're diving into nihilism there which isn't exactly a paragon of logic. An assumption ceases to be an assumption and becomes fact when anyone can confirm it for themselves. Basically objective facts are the only thing a logical deductive argument can contain until your conclusion.

Also, I retract my previous statement as pretty much any objectively false statement you want to make can be reworded as an objectively true statement and then used as a premise.

Edit: Example:
The predominate wavelength of light that is scattered across the sky during noon is around 475 nm
People often describe light of wavelength about 475 nm as blue
Light scattered across the sky appears to come from everywhere in the sky
Thus the sky looks blue

All objective indisputable facts. Cept the conclusion.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 03:47 PM

You're diving into nihilism there which isn't exactly a paragon of logic.
Well, I'm sorry to get so abstract, but we are talking about the roots of logic derivation here.

n assumption ceases to be an assumption and becomes fact when anyone can confirm it for themselves. Basically objective facts are the only thing a logical deductive argument can contain until your conclusion.
Confirm how? With their senses? How do we know that sensory information is accurate? And what exactly is a "fact," anyway?

So you see, this example still needs to be in more basic terms before it's compatible with what I'm saying.

Fifthfiend

01-31-2007, 03:52 PM

I did an undergrad double major in biology and philosophy. I did several courses in logic, and got over 95% in every single one of them.

Hey, I passed five years of spanish courses, but yo no habla el espanol for shit.

Shit, you got me.

Ha ha! Zing!

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 03:52 PM

Confirm how? With their senses? How do we know that sensory information is accurate? And what exactly is a "fact," anyway?

So you see, this example still needs to be in more basic terms before it's compatible with what I'm saying.

That is nearly text book nihilism and nihilism is frankly stupid. Additionally, you can construct some sort of instrument that will measure an objective quantity and always come up with the same answer. That is the same answer no matter who uses the device, who made the device, or where they use the device. That is objective fact.

Also, check my above edit.

Funka Genocide

01-31-2007, 04:13 PM

Hey, I passed five years of spanish courses, but yo no habla el espanol for shit.

That's "Yo no hablo espa�ol por mierda." I believe... Don't quote me on that though because I can't speak a lick of spansih.

But I did a little research myself actually, and it appears that we are discussing a simple logical construct called a categorical syllogism. To clear up a few things, the construction can be valid without the conclusion being true, but the conclusion can not be true unless the construction is valid and both premises are true.

To sum this whole thing up, the purpose of logic is to find truth, and not to create a functionally proper though pointless argument. So the argument that a categorical syllogism can be both valid and untrue as a means to disprove logic is patently absurd.

Now that I think about this, what was the point? What was to be proved through all this?

Logic allows us to discern what is not true, and by that process allows us to come closer to truth. It does not exist in a vacuum, and for a valid statement to have any merit it must be true, and in order for it to be true it's premises must be true and follow the rules of a logical argument. That's as simple as I can put it.

By the way, I totally just finished a shitty correspondence course on philosphy and I got an A. I flunked out of high school though and haven't had an opportunity to go to college yet. I wonder if that has any bearing on any argument I've made...

ha, no I don't. :P

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 04:28 PM

That is nearly text book nihilism and nihilism is frankly stupid.
At this point, I'm going to have to ask that you present more of an argument other than that what I'm saying is "stupid." I know, I know... It's such a fundamental assumption that it seems ridiculous to even bother questioning it. But it's an assumption nonetheless. I'm not saying assumptions are bad (necessarily), I'm just saying that there have to be postulates in a logic system it order for it to go anywhere. Go ahead and look it up on Wikipedia or something if you don't believe me.

Additionally, you can construct some sort of instrument that will measure an objective quantity and always come up with the same answer. That is the same answer no matter who uses the device, who made the device, or where they use the device. That is objective fact.
You're still trusting the observers' senses. Don't get me wrong, that seems like a fine definition for a fact, but it still bases itself on the assumption that our observations present us with reliable information.

Now that I think about this, what was the point? What was to be proved through all this?
That's it's important to examine our assumptions, as well the the assumptions of opposing arguments. That we can all be logical yet still disagree because our assumption sets differ.

I'm not throwing my arms up and saying, "Fuck this, it can't go anywhere." We can still debate what postulates could be appropriate and which couldn't; or which set of assumptions is generally preferable (there are rules to this sort of thing, like "complex postulate BAD!!" and whatnot). But looking purely at the logic of an argument could be fallacious.

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 05:04 PM

At this point, I'm going to have to ask that you present more of an argument other than that what I'm saying is "stupid." I know, I know... It's such a fundamental assumption that it seems ridiculous to even bother questioning it. But it's an assumption nonetheless. I'm not saying assumptions are bad (necessarily), I'm just saying that there have to be postulates in a logic system it order for it to go anywhere. Go ahead and look it up on Wikipedia or something if you don't believe me.
Think carefully about what you are saying for a minute. Your saying that there is a highly significant probability that human senses lie. Not only that though. You would have us belief, in the absence of proof, that every single person's senses lie to us in the same way. Not only that but our instrumentation that does not actually depend on our senses lies in exactly the same way, or that our senses lie in such a why that we are essentially reading what we want to read from our instruments.

To write this in the form of a logical statement:

All of our senses lie
Everything we experience through our senses is reality
Therefore, reality is a lie

All lies are false
reality is a lie
Therefore, reality is false/fake

Everything is effected by reality in a real physical way
Reality is false/fake
Therefore, the effects of reality are false/fake

Its pretty clear that if you see the sun explode the effect is has on reality is not fake. Therefore there is a logical inconsistency in there.

You're still trusting the observers' senses. Don't get me wrong, that seems like a fine definition for a fact, but it still bases itself on the assumption that our observations present us with reliable information.
Present me with a viable provable theory as to why every person's senses would lie in the exact same way. Then extend it to explain how our instruments, whose observations are disconnected from us, happen to be effected in precisely the same way.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 05:18 PM

Your saying that there is a highly significant probability that human senses lie.
No, I'm not. Show me where I wrote that. You're obviously misunderstanding.

I reiterate: assumptions are not bad! Just because you have to assume something doesn't mean you have a weak argument or something like that!

Present me with a viable provable theory as to why every person's senses would lie in the exact same way. Then extend it to explain how our instruments, whose observations are disconnected from us, happen to be effected in precisely the same way.
Coincidence for the first part. For the second, the only way we receive input from our instrument is through our flawed, flawed senses.

Of course, it's a ridiculous premise. There's, like, no chance that our senses are giving us false information. That's what makes it a very safe assumption.

As for your derivation, it's flawed. I never claimed that every single thing we sense is a falsehood (actually, I never even implied that our senses are not to be trusted...). A more appropriate first line would have been "Our senses can produce false information." Can. You make it as though they constantly do.

42PETUNIAS

01-31-2007, 05:26 PM

Coincidence for the first part. For the second, the only way we receive input from our instrument is through our flawed, flawed senses.
Mind giving an example before you completly discredit the billions of years of evolution that lead to us?

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 05:39 PM

Yeah, no, we're flawless. There can be absolutely nothing the least bit suboptimal about humans, biologically. Also, not having a perfect perception of reality would obviously be nothing short of a detrimental trait.

And of course, the entire concept of evolution, as well as the passage of those billions of years, is in no way dependent on us sensing what's actually going on around us.

Mesden

01-31-2007, 05:56 PM

Humans have TERRIBLE senses. We just have a good brain that processes reality very well with the horrible information our sensory organs give us.

Since what we see as reality is actually just our very hard working brain constructing the most senseful schema, everything should actually vary from person to person, depending on how our brain's shape what our horrible sensory organs give us.

Eye Witnesses are not reliable. Any Psych teacher will tell you that. =P

It's why we're so easily fooled into believing faulty things when they seem to make sense.

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 06:09 PM

No, I'm not. Show me where I wrote that. You're obviously misunderstanding.
Ok maybe not a high probability. However:
Example: our observations are consistent with reality. This is an assumption.
[and later]
Confirm how? With their senses? How do we know that sensory information is accurate? And what exactly is a "fact," anyway?

Indicates you believe there is a statistically significant probability that our senses lie. At the very least it indicates our senses are somehow capable of creating a false, for lack of a better word, sensation that is apart from any human action that can be simultaneously experience by any number of people while being recorded by an instrument, and further that for some strange reason all these records match exactly.

Coincidence for the first part. For the second, the only way we receive input from our instrument is through our flawed, flawed senses.
That's barely a theory, no where near viable, and not provable in the least.

Of course, it's a ridiculous premise. There's, like, no chance that our senses are giving us false information. That's what makes it a very safe assumption.
There isn't "like' no chance. There is in fact no chance that your senses are giving you false information if that information is confirmed by other people and instrumentation.

As for your derivation, it's flawed. I never claimed that every single thing we sense is a falsehood (actually, I never even implied that our senses are not to be trusted...). A more appropriate first line would have been "Our senses can produce false information." Can. You make it as though they constantly do.
That doesn't exactly change much but here we go:

Our senses can produce false information
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
Therefore, Some external reality is false information

All false information has no physical effect(external to the human perceiving it)
some reality is false information
Therefore, some external reality has no physical effect

Everything is effected by external reality in a real physical way
Some external reality has no physical effect

... and right there we have to contradictory premises that should both be true but are not. Therefore, there exists a logical inconsistency in those statements. Since All false information has no physical effect is true. No one would argue that because a person hallucinated spiders on a wall there should be verifiable traces of those spiders on the wall for example. Further, Everything is effected be external reality in a real physical way and All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality by definition. Also, since the two of the three remaining premises were derived using the first stated premises the first stated premises must be false.

Also, not having a perfect perception of reality would obviously be nothing short of a detrimental trait.
One need not have a perfect perception of reality to gain valid observations.

Take the three blind men in a room with an elephant. One feels the trunk and observes that it is long, round and muscular much like a snake. The second feels the leg and observes it is rough, solid, and also roundish as well as immobile. The third feels the ear and finds it thin and leathery like the wings of a bat.

Without further observation any conclusions they draw about the nature of the elephant are erroneous because they haven't bothered to shift their perspectives so as to observe another piece. In the process they do give up there ability to perceive the first . However, by returning to it many times they can be sure it doesn't change in the short period of time they need to observe the whole elephant. (Or if it takes them a long time they can slowly chart the changes and come up with a pattern for the change.) So eventually the can form the complete picture of the elephant. This is what science does for us. It allows us to take piece meal bits of reality that we observe through senses and instruments and put it all together into a more holistic view of actual reality. Is it always perfectly right? No. Does that mean our observations are flawed? No. It means we haven't made enough observations yet.

Eye Witnesses are not reliable. Any Psych teacher will tell you that. =P
That is a problem with the storage of the information, and slightly perspective. Not actual physical shortcoming in our sensory organs. Further, any Psych teacher will tell you that if you put enough eye witnesses reports together, without letting the people talk to each other, you eventually get a set of consistent facts.

Also note that I've also added that generally for a fact to be objectively proven it needs to be measured by some non-human sensory means in addition to several humans.

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-31-2007, 06:11 PM

Mind giving an example before you completly discredit the billions of years of evolution that lead to us?
Our senses are flawed practically by definition.

flaw 1 Pronunciation (fl�)
n.
1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness

1. a feature that mars the perfection of something

Flaws are the absence of perfection. Are our senses perfect?

But the big thing is evolution has nothing to do with this. Evolution has been altering our ability to percieve the world for all that time. It has not been improving our ability to percieve the world. At least, that's not the point.

One evolutionary jump may improve or not but the issue is being more adapted to ones environment, not being some classification of 'better'. Generally, it involves being more adapted to the current situation, but that's not necessarily better.

And evolution always settles for what it's got. Evolving systems do not inherently approach perfection or self-improvement. They seek survival and adaptation. Good enough -- not perfect.

And to speak more to the topic, the logic goes something like this:

To percieve the world, it is necessary to filter one's perceptions through one's mind.
One's mind is inherently flawed.
Ergo, one's perceptions are inherently flawed.

And, I mean, we do know our mind is filling in, modifying, and essentially falsifying our perceptions all the time. Optical illusions are the most amusing everyday effect of such things. But there is a reason psychologists have been seeing problems with eyewitness testimony.

Here's a thing about False Memories (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~pgsa/Course%20Readings/Clinical%20Issues/Loftus%20(2003).pdf). Now this may not be dealing with the sensory organs, but the brain is the sensory organ. This was what Ren� Descartes was expressing an inability to trust in his Discours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Method) de la (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext93/dcart10.txt) m�thode (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19796/mp3/19796-01.mp3).

Anyway, I'm bored of searching out things to link, so the point is: we cannot logically trust the human brain completely, but we must to completely trust our senses.

Though, to get back to reality, there's little to be gained by walking down that road but madness and impediments to progress, but that doesn't mean the thought is any less valid.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 06:32 PM

I'm starting to understand why Swordchucks left...

Indicates you believe there is a statistically significant probability that our senses lie. At the very least it indicates our senses are somehow capable of creating a false, for lack of a better word, sensation that is apart from any human action that can be simultaneously experience by any number of people while being recorded by an instrument, and further that for some strange reason all these records match exactly.
No, not a statistically significant probability; any chance would do. In a purely deductive, logical system, "very likely" isn't good enough.

That's barely a theory, no where near viable, and not provable in the least.
That doesn't matter. Is there any logical reason it can't all be a coincidence? No, it's just super unlikely.

There isn't "like' no chance. There is in fact no chance that your senses are giving you false information if that information is confirmed by other people and instrumentation.
Okay, now this just doesn't make sense. If all our senses are flawed, it doesn't matter who else corroborates your story; no one really is able to sense reality consistently.

One need not have a perfect perception of reality to gain valid observations.
Yeah, I know. In case you hadn't realized it, that entire post was sarcastic.

Everything is effected by external reality in a real physical way
Here's a confusion of terms. Up until this point, "external reality" meant reality as we sense it, not actual reality (the one we're trying to sense). This statement is false, as the hypothetically flawed "external reality" is unable to accurately reflect actual reality, so changes in it will not necessarily echo physical changes in actual reality. Unless the actual reality to which I'm referring is what you meant by "external reality," in which case the flaw appears much earlier:
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
This contradicts the very premise you started with; that our senses produce false information. It follows, then, that not all the information we gather from them is of the external reality; some of it is simply falsehoods. This statement as a whole is basically what you've been trying to assert all this time. I assure you that assuming it does nothing to help you prove it. Not logically, anyway.

Darth SS

01-31-2007, 06:57 PM

No, not a statistically significant probability; any chance would do. In a purely deductive, logical system, "very likely" isn't good enough.

Yes it is. What do you think the entire premise of Statistics is? It's not a bunch of Austrians sitting around a table saying "Well...shit man. We got nine hundred ninety nine people out of a thousand that said they think that Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. That must mean it's true." It's much more a group of people (predominantly Austrian) saying "If we asked another million people, I bet you this 999:1 ratio would hold true. In fact, if we ask one more people, I will be very surprised if they disagree. No matter what we do, within these parameters conspiracy theorists will be the minority."

Also my views on information gathering:

Our senses probably aren't wrong. If they were wrong as much as ZAK seems to imply they are, predators would have killed us all before we became intelligent enough to debate this very point.

Through evolution, we are far from perfect. Humans are clunky, fragile, and inefficient beings.

Our senses aren't wrong, they are just woefully incomplete. A magician does a card trick, our senses show us that he's somehow extracted four aces in a row. They don't show us how he did it, which is something that exists. If I smell lemon, then there are the chemicals in the air that make up the lemon smell. Just because I can't find the lemon doesn't mean that my senses are wrong, (hence every single cleaning product ever claims "You can smell lemons" not "lemons appear to make the room smell nice") just that my senses do not hand me the information that is the lemon location.

Or, you're brain damaged. That's really the trump card here.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 07:11 PM

Yes it is. What do you think the entire premise of Statistics is? It's not a bunch of Austrians sitting around a table saying "Well...shit man. We got nine hundred ninety nine people out of a thousand that said they think that Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. That must mean it's true." It's much more a group of people (predominantly Austrian) saying "If we asked another million people, I bet you this 999:1 ratio would hold true. In fact, if we ask one more people, I will be very surprised if they disagree. No matter what we do, within these parameters conspiracy theorists will be the minority."
This totally supports what I'm saying. You can't take the idea that our senses give us true information as a given just because it's unlikely that they don't; that would be just like saying that EVERYONE thinks Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy just because a lot of people think so. Or even all people that you asked think so, given that you didn't ask everyone.

I just realized a different interpretation of this argument, though, so I'll address it. It occurs to me that what you might have been arguing is that we don't need to assume our senses are good, because it's so likely anyway. I don't think that's any good. If all humans have their senses flawed in the exact same way, then it makes sense that our observations would all be consistent with each other, yet still all be imperfect representations of reality.

Our senses probably aren't wrong. If they were wrong as much as ZAK seems to imply they are, predators would have killed us all before we became intelligent enough to debate this very point.
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT OUR SENSES ARE FLAWED. I am arguing that they could be, but in order to apply logic to the world around us, we assume they're not. This is not a weakness. This is not a problem. This is how logic works.

I need a better example, something people maybe won't harp on so much...

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 07:46 PM

No, not a statistically significant probability; any chance would do. In a purely deductive, logical system, "very likely" isn't good enough. Please read that second very crazy run on sentence in that quote of mine. It addresses that somewhat.

That doesn't matter. Is there any logical reason it can't all be a coincidence? No, it's just super unlikely. It does in fact matter because this is what I asked for:
Present me with a viable provable theory as to why every person's senses would lie in the exact same way. Then extend it to explain how our instruments, whose observations are disconnected from us, happen to be effected in precisely the same way.
I asked for this because the theory that our sense aren't capable of feeding us false information is supported by the mountain of independently verifiable observations humans have made and recorded since they could record things. That is observations of the world.

Okay, now this just doesn't make sense. If all our senses are flawed, it doesn't matter who else corroborates your story; no one really is able to sense reality consistently.
The problem is that there is no logically consistent method by which all humans could be wrong in the same way.

Sidetrack: What we sense is not what we perceive. What he sense is the information sent to the brain. What we perceive is how the brain interprets that information. The information collected by our senses is never flawed it is only limited. The interpretations are what become flawed.

That being said machines can't interpret data. You expose a machine able to read the wavelength of a photon a photon with a wavelength of 475 nm it reports a wavelength of 475 nm. You show that readout to a person it is still 475nm. That fact never changes. However, if you show the person the photon you could get any number of answers as to what shade of blue it is. Machines remove the flaws of perception leaving only the perfection of sensory information. Which is why it is impossible that machines could be wrong in the same way as humans.

Here's a confusion of terms. Up until this point, "external reality" meant reality as we sense it, not actual reality (the one we're trying to sense). This statement is false, as the hypothetically flawed "external reality" is unable to accurately reflect actual reality, so changes in it will not necessarily echo physical changes in actual reality. Unless the actual reality to which I'm referring is what you meant by "external reality," in which case the flaw appears much earlier:
It means precisely the same thing in both instances. What I was doing was drawing a distinction between the personal reality of self and the external objective reality. Personal reality, aka perception, has an impact on the person experiencing it without impacting external objective reality. IE, hallucinating spiders does not cause the wall to actually be covered in spiders. In many instances personal reality can be just as real as external objective reality for the person experiencing it. However, it never impacts anything outside the person experiencing it. Events occurring in external objective reality always have effects spanning many people and mechanical observations. Otherwise they can not be verified as objective or external.

This contradicts the very premise you started with; that our senses produce false information. It follows, then, that not all the information we gather from them is of the external reality; some of it is simply falsehoods. This statement as a whole is basically what you've been trying to assert all this time. I assure you that assuming it does nothing to help you prove it. Not logically, anyway.

See the statments:
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
[and later]
Everything is effected by external reality in a real physical way

Are statements of definition and have no link whatsoever with my original premise. They are how external objective reality are defined and are as immutable 2 can be represented as II.

I would also like to spend some time pointing out that two absolutely true premises can lead you to a false conclusion. This is not however a failure in logic nor has it anything to do with being able to interpret the premises as false is on so desired. This particular case only occurs when you improperly phrase your logic argument. That is to say when you logic argument is in a form not consistent with logic thereby it must then be illogical.

I'm starting to understand why Swordchucks left...I wouldn't go down that road because I have a mirror and you aren't going to like what it'll show you.

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 08:10 PM

Present me with a viable provable theory as to why every person's senses would lie in the exact same way.
Impossible. Without such an assumption, all reasoning falls apart (or at least 99% of it). Any explanation I could possibly give you would rely on observations, which can't be trusted without assuming precisely that which I'm trying to show that you must assume. This is a highly abstract issue.

The problem is that there is no logically consistent method by which all humans could be wrong in the same way.
Why not? It could be an inherent flaw in all humans.

Sidetrack: What we sense is not what we perceive. What he sense is the information sent to the brain. What we perceive is how the brain interprets that information. The information collected by our senses is never flawed it is only limited. The interpretations are what become flawed.
I don't know about that... To use your EM observation example, what if, for some reason, we observed a set of wavelengths in between yellow and orange as blue instead of as what we would expect would lie there, thus making us mistakenly oblivious to a color? To extend that to machines, we could also have a flaw which causes us to view the results any machine shows us about this set of wavelengths as also being within the blue range of wavelengths. Or maybe we've made the machines in a way that shows us that, because of another flaw which makes us observe something involved in the construction of the machines wrong, creating a malfunction we can never know about.

I'll take this opportunity to point out that I'm well aware that these things are massively ridiculous bullshit. But at the same time, we can't discount them under a deductive system.
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
[and later]
Everything is effected by external reality in a real physical way
Are statements of definition and have no link whatsoever with my original premise. They are how external objective reality are defined and are as immutable 2 can be represented as II.
Well, the first one can be a definition, but not the second. The second is clearly a statement, unless you're defining what "everything" is. Which you aren't.

Getting tired? I sure am. Maybe a different example would be better, because this sort of thing could be debated for ages. You might be aware how long and hard people tried to prove that every line had a unique parallel through any given point before realizing it had to be postulated...

Sithdarth

01-31-2007, 08:29 PM

Impossible. Without such an assumption, all reasoning falls apart (or at least 99% of it). Any explanation I could possibly give you would rely on observations, which can't be trusted without assuming precisely that which I'm trying to show that you must assume. This is a highly abstract issue.No this is the logical inconsistency I have been driving at. A system of reasoning based on an inconsistency can not be consistent.

Why not? It could be an inherent flaw in all humans.

Except for the fact no two humans are exactly alike. Even identical twins and clones are slightly different than each other. Not to mention this flaw would be one of perception not one of sensing and would thus be immediately exposed by mechanical measurements.

I don't know about that... To use your EM observation example, what if, for some reason, we observed a set of wavelengths in between yellow and orange as blue instead of as what we would expect would lie there, thus making us mistakenly oblivious to a color? To extend that to machines, we could also have a flaw which causes us to view the results any machine shows us about this set of wavelengths as also being within the blue range of wavelengths. Or maybe we've made the machines in a way that shows us that, because of another flaw which makes us observe something involved in the construction of the machines wrong, creating a malfunction we can never know about.You must be careful not to confuse the arbitrary with the objective. A meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second. A second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transistion between the two hyperline levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. These are definitions and they are constant and independent of any perceptions of man.

Now, we defined blue as a photon with a wavelength 475nm. We could call it red, green, or ford. It doesn't change the fact that it is 475nm. We can directly measure its wavelength and compare that with our definition of meter and it will always give us 475nm. This is why 475nm is an objective measurement and blue is subjective. Further, we know if the machines are flawed because we can compare the measurement they make of say a known length(we known the length cause we held it next to the standard) to what the known length actually is. Thereby we can fix the error in any number of ways.

Now don't try telling me our definition of what a meter is and what a second is are wrong. They can't be wrong because they are the definitions of a meter and a second.

Edit:Well, the first one can be a definition, but not the second. The second is clearly a statement, unless you're defining what "everything" is. Which you aren't.It just needs to be reworded into something like:
The effects of external objective reality extend into all aspects of existence.
and then the statement right after that would read:
Some effects of external objective reality do not extend into all aspects of existence

ZAKtheGeek

01-31-2007, 09:24 PM

No this is the logical inconsistency I have been driving at. A system of reasoning based on an inconsistency can not be consistent.
I'm not sure I follow. What inconsistency is there in the system of reasoning? Inconsistent observations? No; before deciding whether or not our perceptions are trustworthy, the system would not include any observations (as they would be hazy, unproven ideas) and would thus suffer no inconsistency there. Sure, it would be a very abstract system, and you probably couldn't get much out of it (a subjective matter, but for Zeus' sake, spare me), but it would still be consistent.

Except for the fact no two humans are exactly alike. Even identical twins and clones are slightly different than each other.
Uuh, so? Surely you're not going to claim that the variations among humans overshadow their similarities. Is it a preposterous claim to say that humans are unable to visually perceive infrared radiation? Anyway, the issue wouldn't even have to be inherent; it could be coincidental. Again, implausibility is not falsehood.

Not to mention this flaw would be one of perception not one of sensing and would thus be immediately exposed by mechanical measurements.
Unless we were also to misperceive our own instruments, as explained previously. And still unaddressed.

You must be careful not to confuse the arbitrary with the objective. A meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second. A second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transistion between the two hyperline levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. These are definitions and they are constant and independent of any perceptions of man.

Now, we defined blue as a photon with a wavelength 475nm. We could call it red, green, or ford. It doesn't change the fact that it is 475nm. We can directly measure its wavelength and compare that with our definition of meter and it will always give us 475nm. This is why 475nm is an objective measurement and blue is subjective. Further, we know if the machines are flawed because we can compare the measurement they make of say a known length(we known the length cause we held it next to the standard) to what the known length actually is. Thereby we can fix the error in any number of ways.

Now don't try telling me our definition of what a meter is and what a second is are wrong. They can't be wrong because they are the definitions of a meter and a second.
Fine, you're right, my example was crappy. Although you haven't said a word about not sensing our own machines properly.

Let me put the example into less abstract terms. Let's say that, for a small set of wavelengths between yellow and orange (whatever specific lengths that range may represent), we perceive those wavelengths exactly as we do those that are around 475 nm. And like I said before, our perceptional error prevents us from using machines to realize this gap in our vision. That would represent an unidentifiable error in our observations, if it worked that way in all humans.

It just needs to be reworded into something like:
The effects of external objective reality extend into all aspects of existence.
That's still not a definition. What term are you defining? You're just saying something about the nature of the effects of an external reality; it's a statement.

Darth SS

01-31-2007, 10:05 PM

I'm sorry ZAK, did you just say "Our senses might be wrong, but for all logic we have to assume that they are right. But all logic is wrong, because we can never be sure about anything!"

That's...I view that as cowardly at best. It's grasping an abstract concept with no real bearing on anything and somehow putting that forward as revolutionary and trying to establish it as something big and meaningful.

Let's go with your argument for a moment. Our senses might be consistently feeding us fallacies, and all logic is based on an assumption.

Isn't it just as likely that our senses could not be feeding us fallacies?

EDIT-
Again, implausibility is not falsehood.

Actually depending on how implausible something is...yes, it is actually.

Azisien

01-31-2007, 11:12 PM

Ack...an interesting religious discussion. Screw it, I like tangents.

And one tangential comment before I dive in: this is to Swordchuck and Archbio. For the interest of not only yourselves (you both seemed to get a little agitated at each other, for no good reason), but for readers of this thread (me, and I presume others), perhaps it would be best if you went beyond "No, this is wrong" and other fanciful one-liners in your back and forths. I had to stop myself on several occasions and ask myself what the hell you guys were arguing about, because you managed to lose me (and perhaps yourselves). Perhaps instead of one-liners, you could say "This is wrong. Here is why it's wrong: *explanation*." If there's a misunderstanding, instead of saying "Read it again, jackass," explain it again, better.

Back to the current subject of the thread. Here is what comes to mind, for me, based on what Zak and his "opponents" are saying:

Zak seems to be talking about objective reality. I mean true, objective reality. The true nature of the universe, perhaps. This is at least how I've comprehended him.

His opponents have been, by and large, talking about human objective reality. Yes, we all (aside from mutants, or defect individuals) perceive blue when we process reflected 475nm light. I think there is truth to this, but it is human truth. Hue, however, is beyond human perception. We can, I think quite correctly, infer that colour is used very extensively and effectively by many organisms throughout the world (something that couldn't happen if other organisms weren't on some level perceiving hue as well).

We perceive our entire reality through a filter. It's the filter of our senses, and what makes it through the filter is processed by our brain to form our perception of reality. There are truths we can form about objective reality, for us. Although there are differences between individuals, we're far more similar than we are different. I think we can all probably agree the sky is blue during the day, unless something unusual is happening (apologies to the colour blind among us).

However, and this is only my interpretation, I think what Zak might be saying is that while this may be true for OUR objectivity, it may not be THE objectivity. If we were all extinct, would the sky be blue during the day? Is it ACTUALLY blue?

What we perceive is a subjective view of reality. We can come together and pool our experiences and with reason, come up with an objective, but still HUMAN, view of reality. That view of reality is a face of the true objective reality of the universe. It is probably not THE objective reality.

Can we get a grip on the true objectivity? I think so. Unfortunately, we have no other sentient, rational organisms we can work together with (or at least properly communicate with). Yet. I think some conclusions in science show us a truer, perhaps colder, nature of the universe. Our definition of a second, given to an alien species and properly translated, should be the same thing. What I mean is, given an alien species had a conception of time like we do, and could comprehend mathematics in a way similar to ours such that translation and communication is possible, the alien could measure the radioactive signals (or whatever god damn mumbo jumbo Sith was spurting) of a cesium atom and it would get the same rate we would. It would observe the same phenomenon. If this was possible, or even if we could communicate with other sentient, rational beings, I think we would transcend the meaning of "objective," as it is defined presently.

Funka Genocide

02-01-2007, 04:49 AM

I just wanted to point out that this tangent is not only eating up ridiculous amounts of space with a pointless (at least in my opinion) argument, and that I haven't seen so much as one word referring to religion in a couple thousand.

Is it too much to ask that we get back on track?

Sithdarth

02-01-2007, 08:05 AM

I'm not sure I follow. What inconsistency is there in the system of reasoning? Inconsistent observations? No; before deciding whether or not our perceptions are trustworthy, the system would not include any observations (as they would be hazy, unproven ideas) and would thus suffer no inconsistency there. Sure, it would be a very abstract system, and you probably couldn't get much out of it (a subjective matter, but for Zeus' sake, spare me), but it would still be consistent.
Its logically inconsistent because if our senses lied to us in anyway even a small one we would eventually end up with a argument that has no flaws and yet does not hold to be true.

Unless we were also to misperceive our own instruments, as explained previously. And still unaddressed.
No it was addressed.

Fine, you're right, my example was crappy. Although you haven't said a word about not sensing our own machines properly.

Let me put the example into less abstract terms. Let's say that, for a small set of wavelengths between yellow and orange (whatever specific lengths that range may represent), we perceive those wavelengths exactly as we do those that are around 475 nm. And like I said before, our perceptional error prevents us from using machines to realize this gap in our vision. That would represent an unidentifiable error in our observations, if it worked that way in all humans.

No it doesn't. If you used a machine to measure a wavelength of light that you perceived as blue and it spit out a wavelength between yellow and orange instead of 475nm you know something is wrong. You know something is wrong because 475nm is defined as blue.

So you get to testing. First you compare the standard for the meter with what ever your spectrometer is using. If these don't match then you found your problem. If they do match its time to go the hospital and have you brain scanned and/or visit your local shrink.

This would be how it is in fact not possible to misperceive our instruments in an undetectable way. This is because we have this standard unchanging well defined objective measurements.

That's still not a definition. What term are you defining? You're just saying something about the nature of the effects of an external reality; it's a statement.
Now I see the misinterpretation.
The effects of external objective reality extend into all aspects of existence.
Is not the actual definition of reality. However, the definition of reality contains within it the requirement that the effects of reality are real and extend into all aspects of what is real. Thus the statement.

Can we get a grip on the true objectivity? I think so. Unfortunately, we have no other sentient, rational organisms we can work together with (or at least properly communicate with). Yet. I think some conclusions in science show us a truer, perhaps colder, nature of the universe. Our definition of a second, given to an alien species and properly translated, should be the same thing. What I mean is, given an alien species had a conception of time like we do, and could comprehend mathematics in a way similar to ours such that translation and communication is possible, the alien could measure the radioactive signals (or whatever god damn mumbo jumbo Sith was spurting) of a cesium atom and it would get the same rate we would. It would observe the same phenomenon. If this was possible, or even if we could communicate with other sentient, rational beings, I think we would transcend the meaning of "objective," as it is defined presently.

We don't need aliens to give us an objective view point. All the mumbo jumbo I said is the objective view point. It just has an arbitrary human filter of names on top of it. We can get rid of that by just using universal units. (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/3735/newforce.html) Which are ironically what we'd expect to be the first means of communication between us and an alien species because they would be the same without having to explain to the aliens what a meter is.

Azisien

02-01-2007, 10:51 AM

We don't need aliens to give us an objective view point. All the mumbo jumbo I said is the objective view point. It just has an arbitrary human filter of names on top of it. We can get rid of that by just using universal units. Which are ironically what we'd expect to be the first means of communication between us and an alien species because they would be the same without having to explain to the aliens what a meter is.

I agree. I (attempted) to say the same thing in the very passage you quoted. But there is more to the human experience than some universal units (your link is broken by the way). We HAVE seen some of what I would call the true objective viewpoint. However, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of all of our experiences are still humanly objective. Aliens for instance would be a great means, if not a necessity (though they very well might be for some concepts).

just wanted to point out that this tangent is not only eating up ridiculous amounts of space with a pointless (at least in my opinion) argument, and that I haven't seen so much as one word referring to religion in a couple thousand.

Is it too much to ask that we get back on track?

Jesus, yes, it is! Hah, all right... (Booya, first reference in a cople thousand!)

I do find it ironic you deem our tangent pointless in a religious discussion, though. I've got little to say on the topic of religion, much of it has been said already. Even you launched some fiery atheist claims some pages back, but unfortunately it got no bites.

Well I could go for a bit of history about myself, I suppose, like someone tried to start up dozens of pages ago. I consider myself an atheist, though as a scientist I also make myself open to possibilities. If there's a God, it won't manage to make me bow on faith alone, given those statements about myself.

I was raised essentially with an empty slate. My mother is Anglican, but doesn't practice openly. My father was raised Roman Catholic but became atheist by his own decision at some point before I was born. To be honest, the topic of religion almost never ever came up during my childhood. Aside from the media, of course, from time to time, but as a kid I think I was more interested in playing soccer and basketball, riding my bike, and owning my mom at Super Mario Kart to care about Islamic fundamentalists and Evangelical Christians and whatever.

As I grew up, I eventually started to question my parents about their beliefs. The response was essentially the same in both cases: "We're not going to force anything on you, believe what you want and make your own decision." The statement actually carries itself beyond the topic of religious belief, it's the same thing they tell me if I ask what they think I should be when I grow up, only the "believe" is replaced with "do."

In grade 8, I went from a public school (and the one I attended, from my experience, was absolutely free of religious influence, aside from Christmas, which was really more the commercial aspect with Santa and such) to a Roman Catholic high school. I stayed there until I graduated. Now if there was a time to convert me, those years were probably it.

And those were the years I started asking harder questions. Around the same time one of my grandmothers who had been suffering from a debilitating terminal disease finally passed away, and given the new Catholic influence in my life (daily prayer, mandatory Religion class, a general Catholic teaching atmosphere), I started searching for a God, so to speak.

Suffice to say, nothing came. I eventually tried to go through the motions and pray in earnest, but prayers of course go unanswered. I never once felt any special experience, regardless of any of the stresses or events I went through in high school. I started at page one of the Bible and made it to the end of Deuteronomy (sp?) before I gave up, now pretty much officially atheist. I drew the conclusion that searching for a God is a fruitless affair. Given the very notion of faith, there can be no answered prayers. There can be no magical experiences. There can be no direct or indirect evidence of a God, because that goes against the notion of faith. I, however, require observable proof. Otherwise, believing in God to me is blind devotion, the kind of thing that can get you killed in a different scenario ("There's a bunch of riches at the bottom of this cliff edge, all you have to do is jump off!" "Won't I get hurt? How do I know it's there? Can I look?" "NO! Just JUMP man!")

Religious scripture, to me, is simply written by the hand of man, with no "divine" inspiration. Inspiration and human creativity, sure, but no magical force moved the hand of those writers.

I see many of the traditions of Catholicism as entirely pointless, and I reject the notion of God. There are, however, valuable ethical and philosophical innards to every religion. Since I define my self as a culmination of my genetics and my experiences in given environments, I'd be lying if I said going to a Catholic high school for 5 years didn't affect me in some way. At the very least, some of the morality rubbed off. Of course, I've refined my own conception of morality since then, and I no longer follow the Catholic/Christian rule (directly anyway, there are parallels to almost all moral views).

What others call religious power, or spirit, or experiences, I call our own human strength. Subconscious human strength. We are not masters of our own minds, we reason and exert control with only a very small portion of it, because that's the way we've evolved. What others might call the power of religious community or the success of such communities, I simply consider that the success of human altruism, and the success of humanity as a species on the planet. We are a herd animal, we function at our absolute best when we are in absolute cooperation. Religion can actually be a vehicle for such cooperation, but I do not see a God in any of that. (Though I must wonder how many hundreds of thousands or millions of people the early Jews or Christians had to eradicate or convert to become the "good guys.")

I ate science right up in high school, and now into university. It led me to other statements like "Religion is a means to achieve the answers we like to hear." Which is something I pretty much agree with as of right now. I later dove into philosophy, stating to my friends campy claims like "I want to learn both sides!" Because everyone, everyone gives me a funny look when I tell them I'm simultaneously in Biology and Philosophy.

Where do I stand now? Well, I'm an atheist, but given my scientific influence, you might call me an atheist-agnostic. Perhaps there's a better term for what I consider myself. The existence of a God is to me an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and not worth my consideration at this time. Even beyond that, it seems almost eternally unfalsifiable, worse than something like elements of M-Theory, which at least we have some vague technological projections for. I much prefer the scientific venture, which not only moves mankind forward in the modern age (in places where religion is trying its very hardest to keep us stagnant, or move us back), but it gives me answers to my liking. Answers I can accept. Science is not a static belief system, it evolves in a way almost analogous to the process of evolution itself. Thus, I don't consider my trust in the scientific engine as something analogous to faith.

And the claim out of that latter statement that bugs me the most is "well, what if science is all wrong?" A claim which doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to begin with. What, exactly, will be shown wrong? Is the proton actually going to be suddenly NOT what it is? Will our buildings suddenly all crumble because science is somehow inherently wrong, and only in our hindsight observation, we'll notice this? I've never understood where that claim comes from, and yet I hear it over, and over, and over again by theists.

Science is of course fallible, because it is performed by fallible organisms. But I think the dynamic structure of the methodology is such that we weed out the bad and move in a positive direction, almost exclusively. No, our history of the fossil record is not complete. However, it grows completer with each passing day. The notion of evolution, both micro and macro, becomes more convincing to me with each passing day. No, our understanding of physics is not complete, but it grows completer with each passing day. No, we don't know what caused the Big Bang, or what preceded the Big Bang, but then we didn't know what a Big Bang was one hundred and fifty years ago. We're already probing some of the most fundamental phenomenon in the universe, where three hundred years ago you'd probably get burned for being a witch if you went on about electrons and atoms and molecules (even though the Greeks had a notion of an indivisible particle at some point, it was the usual wild speculation of the time).

I've found comfort in my ability to be uncertain. I would rather say "I don't know. Yet" than "God did it." We don't have all the answers, but I and others will search for them. And we'll find them.

Well, I'm running out of things to say right now, so I do believe I will bring this rant to a close.

ZAKtheGeek

02-01-2007, 07:40 PM

That's the trouble with tangents... People forget what the hell they were talking about in the first place. It now seems possible that I'm the only person in this thread that knows what point I'm trying to make...

So, to clarify. My original point was that all logic is based on assumptions. You assume something to be true, find implications of those things, and conclude that those implications must also be true (for example). This was met with heavy resistance; claims that we didn't need assumptions when we had "facts." In order to present an example of what I meant, I stated the simplest, constantly taken assumption that came to mind, which is that our observations give us consistent and accurate information about the reality around us. Since then, all I've been trying to do is show how it could be possible for our senses to be flawed without us being any the wiser. I've been trying to demonstrate why this assumption is necessary: because without it, obviously, we basically know nothing; and because you can't conclude it from anything in a definite way.

Now'en.

I'm sorry ZAK, did you just say "Our senses might be wrong, but for all logic we have to assume that they are right. But all logic is wrong, because we can never be sure about anything!"
I don't recall making a statement even remotely similar to that second sentence... All I've been showing is how anything is up for grabs if we don't use the accuracy of our senses as an assumption.

Its logically inconsistent because if our senses lied to us in anyway even a small one we would eventually end up with a argument that has no flaws and yet does not hold to be true.
Provide an example?

No it doesn't. If you used a machine to measure a wavelength of light that you perceived as blue and it spit out a wavelength between yellow and orange instead of 475nm you know something is wrong. You know something is wrong because 475nm is defined as blue.
But remember, when we encounter yellow-orange photons, we also see blue! We'd have no way of knowing that something was wrong. Indeed, we'd have no reason to think that there was any error.

Is not the actual definition of reality. However, the definition of reality contains within it the requirement that the effects of reality are real and extend into all aspects of what is real. Thus the statement.
Then we're right back to the dual meaning. You still seem to be defining what our senses tell us as "reality," then complaining that reality is inconsistent. But as I've already said, what our senses tell us cannot be called reality, because our senses are possible liars, based on the first premise.

Further, we know if the machines are flawed because we can compare the measurement they make of say a known length(we known the length cause we held it next to the standard) to what the known length actually is. Thereby we can fix the error in any number of ways.
"The standard" would undoubtedly be provided by yet another machine of measurement, You're maintaining one machine with another. The flaw in this is that machine could also have a flaw, and any machine that you'd use to test the tester, and so on and so forth.

Archbio

02-02-2007, 12:44 AM

I'll take this opportunity to point out that I'm well aware that these things are massively ridiculous bullshit. But at the same time, we can't discount them under a deductive system.

Have you explained why that is, by the way? Bullshit is bullshit.

There is such a thing as a logical assumption, or the common sense of ignoring fatuous nihilists of convenience, if you prefer.

Nique

02-02-2007, 04:31 AM

It's unfortunate to me that people turn their back on faith becuase they expected to get the winning lotto number, or that they expected some miraculous force to make them into a nicer/better/healthier/good-looking/whatever person.

I was never taught to believe that God was going to solve all my problems - quite the contrary, that I would need to put forth the effort for any improvements, and the imidiate provision I was given in a spiritual sense was the ability to cope, endure... something much less tangible, and internal.

This is a response to something that was stated a while back (and probably repeated); I am also extremely offended at the implication that I am somehow mentally deficient becuase of my faith. I exhibit a reasonable level of inteligence and communicative skill, but reach an unfavorable (to some) conclusion, and I'm suddenly a moron now?

Krylo

02-02-2007, 04:36 AM

and the imidiate provision I was given in a spiritual sense was the ability to cope, endure... something much less tangible, and internal.Problem being that the athiestic amongst us do that just as well, and--in some cases--better than, the religious amongst us.

So, for those of us who cope just dandy without God, and, indeed, have found God to be a source of extraneous stress (with questions as to why/how god would do some of the fucked up shit that happens in this world, completely devoid of human interference [diseases, natural disasters, etc]), something else is needed. More than needed, really.

I exhibit a reasonable level of inteligence and communicative skillOh man. Thanks a lot. I needed that.

Hey guys! The Jehovah's Witness thinks he's smart! Sorry, Nique. I couldn't resist.

Long-Haired Narcissist

02-02-2007, 05:07 AM

Be lucky since I never share this belief with anyone and that I'm just bored enough to share it.

I believe that there is no omnipotent god, but that there are unseen beings that make things happen to/for people. These unseen beings could be what some consider angels, demons, luck, muses, or whatever else you choose to call it.

I believe that the afterlife is determined by a person's state of mind, not what a person has done. For example, happy, or optimistic people would go to heaven: and people who lived their lives angry, scared, pessimistic, or in any other negative state would go to hell.
The afterlife is basicly an eternal uninterrupted dream.
Heaven is a place where all of a person's wants can be attained.
Hell is a person's worst fears for eternity.

Any questions, comments, or converts?

Mesden

02-02-2007, 06:09 AM

Sithdarth

02-02-2007, 08:36 AM

But remember, when we encounter yellow-orange photons, we also see blue! We'd have no way of knowing that something was wrong. Indeed, we'd have no reason to think that there was any error.
If you mean that for some god awfully strange reason our eyes, from the beginning of recorded history, interpreted some color we define currently as yellow-orange as blue instead then you argument is pointless. Blue is a subjective measurement. Subjective measurements are never wrong. Well unless you purposely make them wrong. Blue is 475nm because we defined blue as 475nm. If we saw the same shade at the yellowish-orange part of the spectrum we would still have named it blue. The actual shade we interpret has no physical meaning beyond the human mind. So it could be that way but it doesn't matter because it is subjective fact not objective fact. Basically the spectrometer would still about the same length in nm as for what is currently yellow-orange light we'd just call it blue instead.

Then we're right back to the dual meaning. You still seem to be defining what our senses tell us as "reality," then complaining that reality is inconsistent. But as I've already said, what our senses tell us cannot be called reality, because our senses are possible liars, based on the first premise.
No see because the effects of reality happen if we see them or not. As much as you might want to believe it when a try falls in the forest when no one is around it does make a sound. Also:
Our senses can produce false information
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
are slightly logically incompatible but I forged on to find a more clear cut inconsistency.

"The standard" would undoubtedly be provided by yet another machine of measurement, You're maintaining one machine with another. The flaw in this is that machine could also have a flaw, and any machine that you'd use to test the tester, and so on and so forth.
The meter is an arbitrary unit. The standard can't be wrong because the meter has no meaning outside of human society. We could make it as large or as small as we wanted and it wouldn't change anything. Its a tool so we don't have to use Universal, or Planck Units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units). They are hard as hell to do calculations in.

Provide an example?
Well using the light example, if we measured the wavelength of light to be 450nm instead of 475nm then the predictions of the photoelectric effect would suddenly become meaningless. Since 450nm light should have more energy that 475nm light we would expect a greater power output. For that to suddenly not happen would invalidate the principle.

So, to clarify. My original point was that all logic is based on assumptions. You assume something to be true, find implications of those things, and conclude that those implications must also be true (for example).
No. Deductive logic, they kind I've been using and talking about requires you start with indisputable facts and then come to a conclusion.

Inductive logic allows you to start with less than absolute truth and go from there. You are trying to apply the rules of inductive logic to all logic which just doesn't fly.