"The God Delusion"

[W*GS]

Misbegotten sons
Sep 21st 2006
From The Economist print edition

Richard Dawkins has long trumpeted the rationale of science. Now, at 65, he has finally marshalled a lifetime's arguments against believing in God

http://www.economist.com/images/20060923/3806BK1.jpg

The God Delusion
By Richard Dawkins

“THE GOD DELUSION” is an irreverent book. The author, Richard Dawkins, accuses Jesus of having “dodgy family values”. And don't get him started on the God of the Old Testament, “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

Mr Dawkins is an atheist, an evolutionary biologist and an eloquent communicator about science, three passions that have allowed him to construct a particularly comprehensive case against religion. Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr Dawkins's incisive logic and rapier wit and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith. Even agnostics, who claim to have no opinion on God, may be persuaded that their position is an untenable waffle.

Like several other anti-religious volumes of recent years (“The End of Faith”, “Breaking the Spell”), Mr Dawkins's book is partly a reaction to the September 11th attacks. These have been portrayed as essentially religious acts. Whatever the hijackers' political or social motivations, it was religious faith that ultimately turned them into killing machines. They believed they were doing God's work and would be justly rewarded in the afterlife.

It is easy to denounce such deluded zealots, but what relation do they have to ordinary, “sensible” religious people? The problem, as Mr Dawkins sees it, is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion. (Why is it easier for a Quaker to avoid combat duty as a conscientious objector than someone who simply deplores violence?) Furthermore, the argument goes, any positive aspects of religion can be replaced by equally beneficial non-religious substitutes.

As a prelude to these contestable claims, Mr Dawkins examines the interesting question of why religion is so widespread. Worshipping deities would seem to be an irrational and wasteful habit, yet it has been found in all cultures. Wouldn't natural selection have got rid of religious tendencies if religion were clearly bad for humans after all?

Not necessarily. Mr Dawkins advocates the idea that religion is a by-product of mental abilities that evolved for other purposes. One form of this theory is that children are “programmed” to believe anything their parents tell them, which is quite sensible in light of all the useful information parents can share. But this system is vulnerable to becoming a conduit for worthless information that is passed on for no other reason than tradition.

However, this does not explain the special appeal of religious ideas as opposed to any bizarre ideas. Religious thoughts must be especially compatible with human psychology. “Religion has at one time or another been thought to fill four main roles in human life: explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration,” writes Mr Dawkins, enumerating the four targets of his logical firepower.

He shows that religion does not provide a satisfactory explanation for anything. Here his arguments are well-rehearsed and finely honed from decades of combating American fundamentalists. This section will appeal to anyone who ever wondered, if God created the universe, who created God?

As for exhortation, he argues that in practice, religion is not a legitimate source of morality. If it were, Jews would still be executing those who work on the Sabbath. Where morality actually does come from is less clear. Mr Dawkins suggests the source is a combination of genetic instincts, which evolved because morals allowed humans to benefit more efficiently from co-operation, and a cultural Zeitgeist.

For some people consolation and inspiration are genuine benefits of religion, as even Mr Dawkins will allow. But these functions can and should be fulfilled by other means, he says. This is the most problematic part of his thesis. In his case contemplation of the natural world does the job; his final chapter is an ode to the perspective-altering discoveries of modern physics. But only a minority will find as much consolation in quantum physics as in the prospect of reuniting with their dearly departed in heaven.

Even if it is granted that religion should be expunged, how does Mr Dawkins suggest this could be done? Buy his book as a Christmas gift for one's religious friends? Obviously, many people will never be persuaded; that is precisely the nature of faith. The actual plan is twofold.

First, Mr Dawkins wants to subvert the mode of transmission between parent and child. He calls a religious upbringing a form of indoctrination and equates it to child abuse. He wants to encourage a change in the Zeitgeist, so that when people hear the words “a Catholic child”, or “a Muslim child”, they will wince, and ask how a child could already have formed independent opinions on transubstantiation or jihad.

His second and related plan is to energise atheists, whom he regards as being in the same situation as homosexuals were 50 years ago: stigmatised and unelectable to public office (in America, at least). Mr Dawkins dreams of a day when atheists are as well organised and influential as Christian conservatives have become. If nothing else, his book should help bring the atheists out of the closet.

The God Delusion.
By Richard Dawkins.
Bantam; 372 pages; £20.
To be published in America by Houghton Mifflin on October 18th

Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Okay, I'm just about to start this book again for the second time.

It was one of the best books I've ever read.

[fontaine]

“THE GOD DELUSION” is an irreverent book. The author, Richard Dawkins, accuses Jesus of having “dodgy family values”. And don't get him started on the God of the Old Testament, “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.



What a load of crap.

[W*GS]

Why is that description of JHWH "crap"?

[mhgaffney]

How ironic that W*gs would post this.

Notice the first paragraph:

“THE GOD DELUSION” is an irreverent book. The author, Richard Dawkins, accuses Jesus of having “dodgy family values”. And don't get him started on the God of the Old Testament, “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

Let's start with the Old Testament G-d. Hey! The author is correct! The Hebrews did not cross the threshold into monotheism until AFTER the time of exile in Babylon. Which means that a large chunk of the Old Testament was written by pagans. Many of the descriptions of YHWH are pagan to the core.

Indeed, the claim that G-D gave the Jews a worthless piece of sand is from this period.

Notice, this contradicts W*gs's uncritical support for Israel's Biblical claim for Palestine. And its brutal treatment of the Palestinians.

As for Jesus being weak on "family values", that claim is hilarious. The fact is that Jesus was about 99% celibate. I do not rule out the possibility he maried Mary Magdalene -- but no question the relationship was fundamentally a spiritual one.

For a more full elucidation of these issues please check out my 2004 book
Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes.

www.gnosticsecrets.com

ps. W*gs is only one experience away from renouncing his silly ideas. Watch out W*gs. You never know when lightning will strike.

As they say: **** happens.
MHG

[W*GS]

Thanks for jumping in, gaffney. A plug for your book does seem rather, well, unseemly...

Suffice to say that YHWH, and/or Allah, and/or God, isn't necessary. Indeed, the overall cost of belief in such a silly concept is definitely on the red side of the ledger...

As for some sort of experience turning me into a believer, I suppose a lobotomy could suffice, but that's probably not the sort of event you had in mind, is it?

[alkemical]

My god can't be categorized. But i can tell you, it's not money - so the economist and i will probably disagree..... ;)

[W*GS]

Money isn't my god, certainly. There's never enough of it to worship...

[alkemical]

Money isn't my god, certainly. There's never enough of it to worship...

lol - we all have something we worship though.

[W*GS]

Yep - Kathleen Turner in her "Body Heat" days...

[alkemical]

Yep - Kathleen Turner in her "Body Heat" days...

Look how fleeting that is now...... ;)

[mhgaffney]

Unseemly? Nahh.

That's bizarre coming from an athiest.

My point is simply that you and this essayist are not saying anything new. Heck, the Gnostics had this probem nailed 2,000 years ago.

In fact, I covered this very interesting piece of biblical history in my book. Lucky for you the chapter is posted on the internet.

Ever heard of the Book of Job? It's all in there. Are you literate?

http://www.new-age-spirituality.com/religion/gnostic.html

[fontaine]

Why is that description of JHWH "crap"?

That description of the God in the old testament is complete crap for the same reason you get people saying the Bible is without flaw and has no mistakes because it's divinely inspired.

I know of no other modern movement/scholar that bases his line of thinking and lack of religious beliefs based on slamming text written thousands of years ago.

It's the intellectual equivalent of a midget with one leg fighting Godzilla?

Why is it that this guy seeks his supposed moral/intellectual superiority by slamming ideas/concepts/stories that predate modern civilization?

What has he accomplished?

Idealogically, I find this no different than Bible thumpers who look down on everyone based on the supposed superiority of their religion. Essentially the thought process is the same.

Why base your beliefs or atheism based on hatred of other religions/practitioners rather than investigating your own spirituality?

I don't think his problem is specifically with God, but moreso the portrayel of God through human perception in the Bible or other religions. I can understand that. Where ever there is room to screw up, people usually do and it's most obvious in how people have created their own "flavors" of God through denominations etc. But fault within worshippers and they way they worship is no reflection on God.

[W*GS]

Why is it that this guy seeks his supposed moral/intellectual superiority by slamming ideas/concepts/stories that predate modern civilization?

As if the OT YHWH has been discarded...

Why base your beliefs or atheism based on hatred of other religions/practitioners rather than investigating your own spirituality?

I don't base my atheism on hate - I merely do not see any value in the myth of a God (or gods)...

I don't think his problem is specifically with God, but moreso the portrayel of God through human perception in the Bible or other religions. I can understand that. Where ever there is room to screw up, people usually do and it's most obvious in how people have created their own "flavors" of God through denominations etc. But fault within worshippers and they way they worship is no reflection on God.

So the Israelites had YHWH all wrong? Interesting.

Seems to me that you want God to be only the merciful and nice God, and when It does and says things you don't like, you need that God to be a screwup by Man.

[fontaine]

Seems to me that you want God to be only the merciful and nice God, and when It does and says things you don't like, you need that God to be a screwup by Man.

Not at all. I think mankind (whether it be now, or thousands of years ago) has a very limited understanding of God in general. We're still struggling to grasp basic concepts like why are we here and where did we get our morality etc. I don't think it's illogical to believe that people have a very finite and limited understanding of God laced with their own bias and prejudice.

I mean how could we? We've never heard God, seen God and even refute amongst ourselves on supposed miracles and his representatives. If we start off with the belief that we truely don't know who or what God is then that leads us to the next question: How do I find out?

The Bible etc are decent guidelines but your own spirituality requires time/thought spent on it. If you come to a different conclusion than I then so what? That's to be expected.

i.e. What I suggested in my previous post, you took it to the extreme and said: "So the Israelites had YHWH all wrong?"

I don't base my atheism on hate - I merely do not see any value in the myth of a God (or gods)...

That's cool. But the existence (or lack there of) of God isn't based upon providing you some value.

[W*GS]

But the existence (or lack there of) of God isn't based upon providing you some value.

Since God was created in Man's image, and the concept of God provides no value, there's no reason to maintain that concept.

Sorta like Ptolemy's celestial mechanics.

[alkemical]

Since God was created in Man's image, and the concept of God provides no value, there's no reason to maintain that concept.

Sorta like Ptolemy's celestial mechanics.

But what image would that be? That we have spiritual selves? Or that god must look exactly like what man-kind looks like? If life is indeed divine in nature, then it would be the soul that is in god's image. Now we have to find a scientific way of understanding what/if there is a soul - for someone that needs proof anyways.

[W*GS]

But what image would that be?

“a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

[alkemical]

“a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

So why didn't you include the postives? Why not address the point of a spiritual self or the essense of a soul?

Why so pessimistic?

[Bronco Bob]

So why didn't you include the postives? Why not address the point of a spiritual self or the essense of a soul?

Why so pessimistic?

If someone were convicted of rape, torture, and murder, would you also
require the newspaper article to add that he was nice to his dog?

[W*GS]

So why didn't you include the postives?

Such as?

What about the idea that the God-concept is only a mere rationalization for one's actions? "I'm good because I believe in a God that rewards good behavior, and punishes bad", or, "My God told me that those people over there were evil, so I destroyed them"?

Why not address the point of a spiritual self or the essense of a soul?

I don't believe in a soul. As for spirituality, that's not a concept I find useful.

Does one need a soul, or a sense of spirituality, to have a good life? I believe neither is necessary.

[alkemical]

Such as?

What about the idea that the God-concept is only a mere rationalization for one's actions? "I'm good because I believe in a God that rewards good behavior, and punishes bad", or, "My God told me that those people over there were evil, so I destroyed them"?



I don't believe in a soul. As for spirituality, that's not a concept I find useful.

Does one need a soul, or a sense of spirituality, to have a good life? I believe neither is necessary.


A) On a social scale - it's not a bad thing to have a system that appeals to moral sensabilities. If fear of the afterlife keeps people in line, whom am i to argue? Now who's to say that some athiest says one day, "i'm going to kill all god-believers because the world has no use for them" and goes on killing. Pretty much same stupid rhetoric, don'tya say?

B) No, one doesn't have to live or quest in a spiritual or religious manner to have a good life - but we are still coming back to the same psycological root - you believe it to be that way, and thus it is. So while you may have no use/value for it, you treat it as meaningless. That's fine, but also as dis-respectful of those whom may try to shove their beliefs on you.

[fontaine]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis
But what image would that be?

“a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

This is a very interesting post.

So when it comes to assigning an image to God you choose to believe the OT's portrayel of events when it suits your arguement?
ROFL!

Cut the bs man.

[W*GS]

So when it comes to assigning an image to God you choose to believe the OT's portrayel of events when it suits your arguement?

So your God, during the period of the OT, wasn't any of those things? Interesting that you get to decide which God of your Bible you choose to accept. Did you ask It about that?

What other aspects of your God do you overlook when they're inconvenient?

[fontaine]

So your God, during the period of the OT, wasn't any of those things? Interesting that you get to decide which God of your Bible you choose to accept.



Why should my spirituality and relationship with God be governed by what a group of people in the OT deem it to be? Do you?

Too many people put claims on God, what he is to you/everyone, what he isn't. I'm under no such dellusions.

What other aspects of your God do you overlook when they're inconvenient?

Everthing and nothing. I don't claim to know what exactly God is so how can I overlook any such aspects.

[W*GS]

Why should my spirituality and relationship with God be governed by what a group of people in the OT deem it to be?

Their God is your God. Or did your God change since then?

I don't claim to know what exactly God is so how can I overlook any such aspects.

What purpose does this God-concept serve if you do not know (and cannot know) what It is?

[alkemical]

If someone were convicted of rape, torture, and murder, would you also
require the newspaper article to add that he was nice to his dog?

So god really existed and came down and killed, raped and pillaged people, or did people do that of their own accord in trying to do what they think god wants?

I mean - really to apply your logic - then i guess all the bad things said about team USA is true then, right? No need to say what good we do the world when we cause our own fair share of ills, right?

[alkemical]

What purpose does this God-concept serve if you do not know (and cannot know) what It is?

Nothing is true, and everything is permissible.

[fontaine]

Their God is your God. Or did your God change since then?



Sorry, a person who doesn't even believe in God is the last one that should be telling me who or what God is. Not only is it hypocritical but downright dumb.

Why do you feel compelled to convince me about something you don't even believe in yourself?


What purpose does this God-concept serve if you do not know (and cannot know) what It is?

That's not what I said. I said I don't know exactly what God is. No one does. As for what purpose does it serve? It's relative to expectations and perception.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What purpose does this God-concept serve if you do not know (and cannot know) what It is?From my observations it gives many people something they think they need (an explanation, reason, etc...).

[alkemical]

From my observations it gives many people something they think they need (an explanation, reason, etc...).

For some people it does, that i'll agree with. I always found the "god works in mysterious ways" phrase sort of silly. While i've had some things happen to me personally - that maybe there's no other explanation than no explanation. Or perhaps "by the grace of god, go i" or some crazy thing. Maybe we can't see god, because we are just a fragment of god - just a living particle with percieved awareness. Maybe our existence is aiken to nothing more than a dream of ourselves. Or maybe god doesn't contemplate you, if you don't contemplate it.

[W*GS]

So God is nothing more than a figment of any given person's imagination...

It has as much worth as say, Zeus.

Would anyone take someone who has faith in Zeus (and lives his life according to what he thinks Zeus tells him how to live, think, and act) seriously, if what we've read here applies to Zeus as what we've read applies to God?

Why treat the two believers (one in Zeus, one in God) differently?

[alkemical]

So God is nothing more than a figment of any given person's imagination...
It has as much worth as say, Zeus.

Would anyone take someone who has faith in Zeus (and lives his life according to what he thinks Zeus tells him how to live, think, and act) seriously, if what we've read here applies to Zeus as what we've read applies to God?

Why treat the two believers (one in Zeus, one in God) differently?

A) Not for me it's not, since i can't define what god is, other than "god". I don't have a "bible" that defines it. I can only see god when i look at a DNA strand, to the spiral of the milky way.

B) Why shouldn't i take zeus seriously? I mean, after all he is a god who at one time had a residence on mt. olympus. Maybe you can ask Odin your questions. But you are still basing everything on your perception that there is no god of any kind. There's no proof that god either exists or doesn't exist. Just as there's no proof the soul exists or doesn't exist.

C) It's a cultural-psychology thing. Why do kids make fun of kids for what shoes or jeans they wear. Because they are outside the perceived conditioned range of what is "normal". Same thing applies here. Sort of a "My Gods can beat up your God" type of thing. Pure human psychology at work.

[Bronco Bob]

A) Not for me it's not, since i can't define what god is, other than "god". I don't have a "bible" that defines it. I can only see god when i look at a DNA strand, to the spiral of the milky way.



Oddly enough, when I look at DNA, I see a collection of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus atoms held together by electrical bonds.
Likewise when I see a galaxy, I see a collection of stars held together
by their mutual gravitational fields. I find both of these very beautiful
and fascinating. To me, to say a god created them takes away the
beauty of the science behind them because it says that these marvelous
structures didn't have the ability to form themselves, they depended
on the whim of some bored supernatural entity instead of following the
natural laws of the universe.

[alkemical]

Oddly enough, when I look at DNA, I see a collection of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus atoms held together by electrical bonds.
Likewise when I see a galaxy, I see a collection of stars held together
by their mutual gravitational fields. I find both of these very beautiful
and fascinating. To me, to say a god created them takes away the
beauty of the science behind them because it says that these marvelous
structures didn't have the ability to form themselves, they depended
on the whim of some bored supernatural entity instead of following the
natural laws of the universe.

Only if you are looking at it through a westernized-judeo-christian-0scope. :)
Why if some great being created art that is so majestic, take away from it? Why would "god" have to knowingly create. I never said god was omniscient in the sense of "god" knowing what claviculasolomonis is doing right this very instant. I don't know what god knows, i don't know if DNA is god. I don't know if i'm a nano-quark-thingy that has some precieved level of consciousness.

Fact is until we have some definition of what consiousness (if there is a soul) is, we will not have a definition of what god is.

Also - what's the problem if i look at a DNA strand and see "Life" or i look at a far away galaxay and see art - and just thank "god" that these beauties exist, both great and small and that i was able to bear witness?

[alkemical]

Do cosmic forces control life on Earth? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277613/)


Motions of our solar system are similar to Earth’s biodiversity cycle

The rise and fall of species on Earth might be driven in part by the undulating motions of our solar system as it travels through the disk of the Milky Way, scientists say.

Two years ago, scientists at the University of California, Berkeley found the marine fossil record shows that biodiversity — the number of different species alive on the planet—increases and decreases on a 62-million-year cycle. At least two of the Earth’s great mass extinctions — the Permian extinction 250 million years ago and the Ordovician extinction about 450 million years ago — correspond with peaks of this cycle, which can’t be explained by evolutionary theory.

Now, a team of researchers at the University of Kansas (KU) have come up with an out-of-this-world explanation. Their idea hinges upon the fact that, appearances aside, stars are not fixed in space. They move around, sometimes rushing headlong through galaxies, or approaching close enough to one another for brief cosmic trysts.

In particular, our sun moves toward and away from the Milky Way’s center, and also up and down through the galactic plane. One complete up-and-down cycle takes 64 million years— suspiciously similar to Earth’s biodiversity cycle.

Galactic bow shock
The KU researchers independently confirmed the biodiversity cycle and have proposed a novel mechanism by which the sun’s galactic travels is causing it.

Scientists know the Milky Way is being gravitationally pulled toward a massive cluster of galaxies, called the Virgo Cluster, located about 50 million light years away. Adrian Melott and his colleague Mikhail Medvedev, both KU researchers, speculate that as the Milky Way hurdles towards the Virgo Cluster, it generates a so-called bow shock in front of it that is similar to the shock wave created by a supersonic jet.

“Our solar system has a shock wave around it, and it produces a good quantity of the cosmic rays that hit the Earth. Why shouldn’t the galaxy have a shock wave, too?” Melott said.

The galactic bow shock is only present on the north side of the Milky Way’s galactic plane, because that is the side facing the Virgo Cluster as it moves through space, and it would cause superheated gas and cosmic rays to stream behind it, the researchers say. Normally, our galaxy’s magnetic field shields our solar system from this “galactic wind.” But every 64 million years, the solar system’s cyclical travels take it above the galactic plane.

“When we emerge out of the disk, we have less protection, so we become exposed to many more cosmic rays,” Melott told SPACE.com.

How cosmic rays affect life
The boost in cosmic–ray exposure could have both a direct and indirect effect on Earth’s organisms, said KU paleontologist Bruce Lieberman. The radiation could lead to higher rates of genetic mutations in organisms or interfere with their ability to repair DNA damage, potentially leading to diseases like cancer.

Cosmic rays are also associated with increased cloud cover, which could cool the planet by blocking out more of the Sun’s rays. They also interact with molecules in the atmosphere to create nitrogen oxide, a gas that eats away at our planet’s ozone layer, which protects us from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.

Richard Muller, one of the UC Berkeley physicists who co-discovered the cycle, said Melott and his colleagues have come up with a plausible galactic explanation for the biodiversity cycle. Muller and Robert Rohde also speculated that our solar system’s movement through the galactic plane was behind the cycle, but the pair could not conceive of any reason why conditions on the north and south side of the galactic plane should differ.

“That’s where they succeeded,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “They came up with something we didn’t think of, which puts an asymmetry in. I’m delighted they did that and I congratulate them.”

A first-step hypothesis
Richard Bambach, a paleontologist at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History who was not involved in the study, said he is excited the biodiversity cycle has been independently confirmed, but cautions the galactic hypothesis is still in the early stages of formulation.

“It’s a first-step hypothesis,” Bambach said. “It’s an interesting idea, but we’re a long way from knowing if that is really why biodiversity changes.”

For one thing, scientists have yet to discover a bow shock around the Milky Way, though such shock waves have been found around other galaxies.

“I think it’s a very nice idea,” said Philip Appleton, a Caltech astronomer. “I think we’re only beginning to come to grips with these kinds of behaviors. We’re realizing that not only do galaxies interact with each other gravitationally, but also that the environment they’re traveling through—the ‘wind’ they create—can actually produce noticeable effects.”

Last year, Appleton and his team discovered a bow shock surrounding a galaxy in Stephan’s Quintet, a galactic cluster located 300 million light years away. The shock wave is traveling about 620 miles (1,000 km) per second relative to the cluster.

[Bronco Bob]

It has been fairly well established that the Chicxulub meteorite caused a
mass extinction 65 million years ago. It could also be that as the solar
system moves throught the galaxy the changing gravtitaional fields
perturb objects in the solar system causing some of them to change
orbit and head towards the earth. We are due for another one soon.
We might have even bit the bullet temporarilly when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
was intercepted by Jupitar back in 1994. Imagine if that comet had hit
the earth instead.

[Rohirrim]

It has been fairly well established that the Chicxulub meteorite caused a
mass extinction 65 million years ago. It could also be that as the solar
system moves throught the galaxy the changing gravtitaional fields
perturb objects in the solar system causing some of them to change
orbit and head towards the earth. We are due for another one soon.
We might have even bit the bullet temporarilly when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
was intercepted by Jupitar back in 1994. Imagine if that comet had hit
the earth instead.

Which is why we have to work to colonize other planets in the universe. And no, I am not kidding.

[bendog]

So god really existed and came down and killed, raped and pillaged people, or did people do that of their own accord in trying to do what they think god wants?

I mean - really to apply your logic - then i guess all the bad things said about team USA is true then, right? No need to say what good we do the world when we cause our own fair share of ills, right?

I was listening to NPR and there was a comedian who had a routine of God in the OT as a bipolar alcoholic father. You just never knew what Pop you'd get. Tearful guy in need of constant worship, guild ridden love, No warning beat down on the kid. Unfortnately, I had to turn it off before I got his name.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Science, a natural observational tool, trying to explain the supernatural is like Barney trying to explain the 3-4 defense. More pop pseudo-science mixed with personal judgments based on speculation. It never has been the place of science to explain WHY its observations are what they are and Dawkins once again shows how idiotic it is to try.

The problem is that Dawkins (and other atheist apologists) don't deal directly with the proofs already on the table. They turn them into psychobabble and refuse to give them their just due from a standpoint of reason. Just another guy putting up straw men and knocking them down. Nothing new to see here.

[W*GS]

The problem is that Dawkins (and other atheist apologists) don't deal directly with the proofs already on the table.

What "proofs" are you talking about?

[BroncoInferno]

Science, a natural observational tool, trying to explain the supernatural is like Barney trying to explain the 3-4 defense. More pop pseudo-science mixed with personal judgments based on speculation. It never has been the place of science to explain WHY its observations are what they are and Dawkins once again shows how idiotic it is to try.

The problem is that Dawkins (and other atheist apologists) don't deal directly with the proofs already on the table. They turn them into psychobabble and refuse to give them their just due from a standpoint of reason. Just another guy putting up straw men and knocking them down. Nothing new to see here.

Have you read The God Delusion? What specific arguments do you take issue with?

[epicSocialism4tw]

What about the idea that the God-concept is only a mere rationalization for one's actions? "I'm good because I believe in a God that rewards good behavior, and punishes bad", or, "My God told me that those people over there were evil, so I destroyed them"?

That's an inaccurate depiction of the condition of one's relation to the personal God. That's what is illustrated through the account of Jesus. It's no wonder that you and Dawkins have a fundamental misunderstanding in that regard. Many Christians spend their entire lives believing that they will be rewarded or punished in the afterlife according to their deeds. That's not exactly what Jesus was talking about.

The kingdom of heaven that Jesus taught was meant to be understood as something that is here and attainable right now, as well as later. It's something that is free of cost and natural. It is a way of living that puts one into touch with what pure human experience on the planet earth is supposed to be like.

God is not affected one way or another by our behavior. God is not a banker, and he is not a genie in the sky. God is, has been, and will be.

God made things very simple for us. He made a universe of entropy and reorganization of matter. One that would be considered harsh and unforgiving by human behavioral understanding. He gave us a way to rise above and lord ourselves over the brutal nature of our immediate surroundings.


I don't believe in a soul. As for spirituality, that's not a concept I find useful.

If you would rather live your life on the modern simplistic and underinformed extrapolations of Darwin, then have at it. Dawkins plans on selling it to the masses, and I'm absolutely positive that no one will be buying. There are too many people in the world with higher expectations than Dawkins.

Dawkins has deluded himself into thinking that someone will buy what he's selling. There have been many Dawkinses before him, and there will be many after him and they will not accomplish what they seek to. Man will never have knowledge by the horns, and it is insane to believe that the brain is a sophisticated enough tool to see to the ends of its own universe and to understand what, if there is, anything past its edges. Man must think that there is something really special about himself if he can teach himself to obtain knowledge that exists in places that he will never see in any capacity. The brain was built in this universe with putty found here. To expect it to go beyond itself should make any naturalist ashamed to have even thought the idea.

Dawkins is liked by his proponents because of his wit and his unabashed enmity and disdainful voice directed at people of faith. That makes him a hero to some. It's definitely not his ideas that readers turn pages for. There is nothing worth noting there. He speaks nothing new.

Does one need a soul, or a sense of spirituality, to have a good life? I believe neither is necessary.

What measure makes life "good" to you? Is "good" even an experiential substance worth living for? Or is it just a creation of your own brain...a reward system for your behavior...a learned device that steers you away from danger? If that's the case, does it matter whether or not your life is "good"? Why even worry about having a "good" life? The goal is survival, right? Then everything is relative. You invent good. Why not just acknowledge that "good" is only beneficial in a pragmatic sense, and do away with it unless you need to get some thing accomplished for the betterment of yourself in your own goal in survival?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Oddly enough, when I look at DNA, I see a collection of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus atoms held together by electrical bonds.
Likewise when I see a galaxy, I see a collection of stars held together
by their mutual gravitational fields. I find both of these very beautiful
and fascinating. To me, to say a god created them takes away the
beauty of the science behind them because it says that these marvelous
structures didn't have the ability to form themselves, they depended
on the whim of some bored supernatural entity instead of following the
natural laws of the universe.


Those same types of awe-inspiring observations have led many to wonder what set those laws a-spinning, and why.

I think that you are speaking in a fundamental difference of popular philosophy when you say that the object itself controls its own effect on its environment (in reference to your quote: "To me, to say a god created them takes away the beauty of the science behind them because it says that these marvelousstructures didn't have the ability to form themselves"). Here's the problem. The object didnt choose to act on other objects with the characteristics that it displays. I think that we can both agree that it "just was" or "just is" that way, correct? Okay...now were moving towards a first cause. Now you're finding your way to what Plato called the "immoveable mover" or the source of all causality. If we think in causal terms as naturalists/materialists, then we agree that cause and effect are something that is an observeable and repeatable condition that exists among every characteristic of the universe that we know...chemical reactions, behaviors, physical interactions, cell respiration, etc. are all subject to the laws of cause and effect. Action and reaction.

Follow that trail. Does it ever end?

[W*GS]

Follow that trail. Does it ever end?

Your problem is that by positing an uncaused First Cause, you're merely being arbitrary. Calling that First Cause "God" is also arbitrary - and still leaves you a long ways from the personal Christian God you believe in.

[W*GS]

That's an inaccurate depiction of the condition of one's relation to the personal God. That's what is illustrated through the account of Jesus. It's no wonder that you and Dawkins have a fundamental misunderstanding in that regard. Many Christians spend their entire lives believing that they will be rewarded or punished in the afterlife according to their deeds. That's not exactly what Jesus was talking about.

So what's the point of the Heaven and Hell concepts? If your God cannot have Hell for sinners, or Heaven for believers, then belief or disbelief in it has no real consequences - thus the concept of God is as a relevant as the concept of Zeus. Why maintain belief in one myth over the other, if the upshot of the belief is irrelevant?

The kingdom of heaven that Jesus taught was meant to be understood as something that is here and attainable right now, as well as later. It's something that is free of cost and natural.

I disagree that belief in an unknown and unknowable God is "free of cost" - it requires the abandonment of reason, which is the key element of what it is to be human. By requiring the elimination of thought when it comes to believing in your God, you're paying a very heavy price. As for "natural", what's natural about your God and/or belief in God? Why not Zeus instead?

God is not affected one way or another by our behavior.

God doesn't care about us at all? That's odd - I was under the impression that your God was deeply concerned and moved by us - isn't that what prayer is all about? Why bother petitioning him, especially in the darkest moments of our lives, if he doesn't give a **** one way or the other?

God made things very simple for us. He made a universe of entropy and reorganization of matter. One that would be considered harsh and unforgiving by human behavioral understanding. He gave us a way to rise above and lord ourselves over the brutal nature of our immediate surroundings.

What is that way? Belief in God? I don't see believers any less subject to the whims of the universe than others.

If you would rather live your life on the modern simplistic and underinformed extrapolations of Darwin, then have at it. Dawkins plans on selling it to the masses, and I'm absolutely positive that no one will be buying. There are too many people in the world with higher expectations than Dawkins.

It's too bad that you believe that belief in God is the only thing that gives life real meaning. Consider all the great people throughout history for whom your God was unknown. Were they frauds and charlatans?

Man will never have knowledge by the horns, and it is insane to believe that the brain is a sophisticated enough tool to see to the ends of its own universe and to understand what, if there is, anything past its edges. Man must think that there is something really special about himself if he can teach himself to obtain knowledge that exists in places that he will never see in any capacity. The brain was built in this universe with putty found here. To expect it to go beyond itself should make any naturalist ashamed to have even thought the idea.

Man invented God - that's a pretty fine accomplishment, if you think your God is that wonderful a thing.

It's telling that you denigrate reason - which is what our brain provides us. You say that in the biggest picture, it's utterly useless. Why? Does it have utility right up to that point? It's amazing that you use reason for all manner of needs, big and small, so that you can live your life. Yet it's suddenly worthless at some arbitrary point of acquiring knowledge - very bipolar of you!

What measure makes life "good" to you?

Happiness.

The rest of your nonsense implying survival at all costs is just silly.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Your problem is that by positing an uncaused First Cause, you're merely being arbitrary. Calling that First Cause "God" is also arbitrary - and still leaves you a long ways from the personal Christian God you believe in.


Nowhere did I insinuate that the first cause was what you are calling "God". The first cause argument is simply to show that there is the possibility of something that set things in motion in our universe, and that given the information that we have today, linear causality is a distinct possiblity. Even the theory of evolution depends on linear causality.

[Bronco Bob]

Nowhere did I insinuate that the first cause was what you are calling "God". The first cause argument is simply to show that there is the possibility of something that set things in motion in our universe, and that given the information that we have today, linear causality is a distinct possiblity. Even the theory of evolution depends on linear causality.

Because something happens doesn't have to mean a someone caused it
to happen. Sometimes s**t happens. Basically the first happening was
the Big Bang, which set everything else in action. Now keep in mind
that in addition to creating the Universe, the Big Bang created time.
Time didn't exist before the Big Bang. There was no before before the
Big Bang. Think of the beginning of time as the south pole, with time
after the Big Bang moving north. Now what is father south than the
exact center of the south pole? This answers what was going on
before the Big Bang, there was no before. What caused the Big Bang?
If you say God, then where did God come from, what caused
God. Or maybe the Big Bang also created God?

[epicSocialism4tw]

So what's the point of the Heaven and Hell concepts? If your God cannot have Hell for sinners, or Heaven for believers, then belief or disbelief in it has no real consequences - thus the concept of God is as a relevant as the concept of Zeus. Why maintain belief in one myth over the other, if the upshot of the belief is irrelevant?

Hell is a garbage heap. It's a rotting pile of refuse. It is a place for used up objects that were once useful. Yours and my concepts of what hell is or isnt are very different. I see hell as separation from God. The universe that we find ourselves born into is very cold and harsh. To be left to stay afloat in it without the favor and company of my God would be an absolute nightmare.



I disagree that belief in an unknown and unknowable God is "free of cost" - it requires the abandonment of reason, which is the key element of what it is to be human. By requiring the elimination of thought when it comes to believing in your God, you're paying a very heavy price. As for "natural", what's natural about your God and/or belief in God? Why not Zeus instead?

First off, ask Lewis about reason. He reasoned himself right out of atheism and into Christianity. Ask my old ethics professor who only got further and further separated from the sciences and his atheism the closer he got to his advanced degrees. He reasoned himself right into Protestant Christianity. The idea that there are no Christian intellectuals is one that you readily accept with much evidence to the contrary. It is popular to prop one's atheism up on a crutch of arrogance. That's about the only value that an atheist should pull from an author like Dawkins...more circular self-esteem strokes and new ways to preen the wings.



God doesn't care about us at all? That's odd - I was under the impression that your God was deeply concerned and moved by us - isn't that what prayer is all about? Why bother petitioning him, especially in the darkest moments of our lives, if he doesn't give a **** one way or the other?

I think that you would probably be better served to make points in that arena within the context that you were originally discussing.


What is that way? Belief in God? I don't see believers any less subject to the whims of the universe than others.

Exactly.



It's too bad that you believe that belief in God is the only thing that gives life real meaning. Consider all the great people throughout history for whom your God was unknown. Were they frauds and charlatans?

I'm not sure what relevance the terms "frauds" or "charlatans" has to a discussion of what makes a human's existence of value. It's quite a bit more complicated than that.



Man invented God - that's a pretty fine accomplishment, if you think your God is that wonderful a thing.

Yet another statement based in nothing but your faith in the truth of your brand of atheism. This statement has no relevance to the discussion, and is a typical example of what guys like Dawkins take pleasure in...childish games of imagined one-upmanship.

It's telling that you denigrate reason - which is what our brain provides us. You say that in the biggest picture, it's utterly useless. Why? Does it have utility right up to that point? It's amazing that you use reason for all manner of needs, big and small, so that you can live your life. Yet it's suddenly worthless at some arbitrary point of acquiring knowledge - very bipolar of you!

You just changed the subject. I could explain to you the importance of diligence and the use of wisdom and intellectual rigor all throughout the history of the Christian church, but I dont think that you are interested.



Happiness.

You live your life to experience a chemical reaction and it's effect on your central nervous system? Are you nothing more than a drug addict?

The rest of your nonsense implying survival at all costs is just silly.

It is the logical conlclusion of secular humanism. Just wait until things get a little bit tougher for humans in this country. You'll see how well secular humanistic ethics hold up in the face of raw survival. Secular humanism is more fraught with contradictions and paradoxes than science itself.

[epicSocialism4tw]

[QUOTE]Because something happens doesn't have to mean a someone caused it
to happen.

Something caused it to happen. At least that's what Newton's Third Law implies.


Sometimes s**t happens. Basically the first happening was
the Big Bang, which set everything else in action. Now keep in mind
that in addition to creating the Universe, the Big Bang created time.
Time didn't exist before the Big Bang. There was no before before the
Big Bang. Think of the beginning of time as the south pole, with time
after the Big Bang moving north. Now what is father south than the
exact center of the south pole? This answers what was going on
before the Big Bang, there was no before. What caused the Big Bang?
If you say God, then where did God come from, what caused
God. Or maybe the Big Bang also created God?


There you go. Something happened, right? A set of events led to the cooling of matter in the universe and set up the conditions for the behavior of matter in the immediate enviroment of every system imaginable and beyond in the universe. This is the causal chain I was referring to.

At the end of that chain is something that we do not understand. We might never understand it fully, because all we will be able to determine is that forces acted upon it in some way that left a little evidence in the big bang itself.

Anyway, at the end of the chain you have reached Plato's immoveable mover. Man is so brilliant that in the near 2500 years since Plato's life he has not been able to see beyond Plato.

[yavoon]

Do cosmic forces control life on Earth? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277613/)


Motions of our solar system are similar to Earth’s biodiversity cycle

The rise and fall of species on Earth might be driven in part by the undulating motions of our solar system as it travels through the disk of the Milky Way, scientists say.

Two years ago, scientists at the University of California, Berkeley found the marine fossil record shows that biodiversity — the number of different species alive on the planet—increases and decreases on a 62-million-year cycle. At least two of the Earth’s great mass extinctions — the Permian extinction 250 million years ago and the Ordovician extinction about 450 million years ago — correspond with peaks of this cycle, which can’t be explained by evolutionary theory.

Now, a team of researchers at the University of Kansas (KU) have come up with an out-of-this-world explanation. Their idea hinges upon the fact that, appearances aside, stars are not fixed in space. They move around, sometimes rushing headlong through galaxies, or approaching close enough to one another for brief cosmic trysts.

In particular, our sun moves toward and away from the Milky Way’s center, and also up and down through the galactic plane. One complete up-and-down cycle takes 64 million years— suspiciously similar to Earth’s biodiversity cycle.

Galactic bow shock
The KU researchers independently confirmed the biodiversity cycle and have proposed a novel mechanism by which the sun’s galactic travels is causing it.

Scientists know the Milky Way is being gravitationally pulled toward a massive cluster of galaxies, called the Virgo Cluster, located about 50 million light years away. Adrian Melott and his colleague Mikhail Medvedev, both KU researchers, speculate that as the Milky Way hurdles towards the Virgo Cluster, it generates a so-called bow shock in front of it that is similar to the shock wave created by a supersonic jet.

“Our solar system has a shock wave around it, and it produces a good quantity of the cosmic rays that hit the Earth. Why shouldn’t the galaxy have a shock wave, too?” Melott said.

The galactic bow shock is only present on the north side of the Milky Way’s galactic plane, because that is the side facing the Virgo Cluster as it moves through space, and it would cause superheated gas and cosmic rays to stream behind it, the researchers say. Normally, our galaxy’s magnetic field shields our solar system from this “galactic wind.” But every 64 million years, the solar system’s cyclical travels take it above the galactic plane.

“When we emerge out of the disk, we have less protection, so we become exposed to many more cosmic rays,” Melott told SPACE.com.

How cosmic rays affect life
The boost in cosmic–ray exposure could have both a direct and indirect effect on Earth’s organisms, said KU paleontologist Bruce Lieberman. The radiation could lead to higher rates of genetic mutations in organisms or interfere with their ability to repair DNA damage, potentially leading to diseases like cancer.

Cosmic rays are also associated with increased cloud cover, which could cool the planet by blocking out more of the Sun’s rays. They also interact with molecules in the atmosphere to create nitrogen oxide, a gas that eats away at our planet’s ozone layer, which protects us from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.

Richard Muller, one of the UC Berkeley physicists who co-discovered the cycle, said Melott and his colleagues have come up with a plausible galactic explanation for the biodiversity cycle. Muller and Robert Rohde also speculated that our solar system’s movement through the galactic plane was behind the cycle, but the pair could not conceive of any reason why conditions on the north and south side of the galactic plane should differ.

“That’s where they succeeded,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “They came up with something we didn’t think of, which puts an asymmetry in. I’m delighted they did that and I congratulate them.”

A first-step hypothesis
Richard Bambach, a paleontologist at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History who was not involved in the study, said he is excited the biodiversity cycle has been independently confirmed, but cautions the galactic hypothesis is still in the early stages of formulation.

“It’s a first-step hypothesis,” Bambach said. “It’s an interesting idea, but we’re a long way from knowing if that is really why biodiversity changes.”

For one thing, scientists have yet to discover a bow shock around the Milky Way, though such shock waves have been found around other galaxies.

“I think it’s a very nice idea,” said Philip Appleton, a Caltech astronomer. “I think we’re only beginning to come to grips with these kinds of behaviors. We’re realizing that not only do galaxies interact with each other gravitationally, but also that the environment they’re traveling through—the ‘wind’ they create—can actually produce noticeable effects.”

Last year, Appleton and his team discovered a bow shock surrounding a galaxy in Stephan’s Quintet, a galactic cluster located 300 million light years away. The shock wave is traveling about 620 miles (1,000 km) per second relative to the cluster.

this deserves its own thread! cool theory!

[W*GS]

Nowhere did I insinuate that the first cause was what you are calling "God".

Fair enough - then the relationship between your God and this arbitrary First Causer is semantic game-playing. For all you know, the Uncaused Causer made your God...

In short, positing an Uncaused Causer gets you absolutely nowhere...

[W*GS]

Yours and my concepts of what hell is or isnt are very different. I see hell as separation from God.

Hell has no meaning.

The universe that we find ourselves born into is very cold and harsh.

The universe merely is - ascribing "cold and harsh" to it serves no purpose - rather like saying earthquakes are cruel or tornadoes are evil. They simply are.

To be left to stay afloat in it without the favor and company of my God would be an absolute nightmare.

So how is it that billions of people, today and throughout history, have managed to live happy, contented, and quite moral lives without the faintest belief in your God? Were they all living a lie, and in fact were in "an absolute nightmare"?

Speaking of addictions...

First off, ask Lewis about reason. He reasoned himself right out of atheism and into Christianity.

I daresay the majority of evolution of belief is in the other direction.

The idea that there are no Christian intellectuals is one that you readily accept with much evidence to the contrary.

Oh, there are Christian intellectuals - however, they choose to abandon that reason which serves them so incredibly well in all other aspects of their existence when it comes to the faith of their beliefs. Sorta like stopping just short of the finish line and claiming sudden quadriplegia, thus the runner cannot win the race... Strange, really.

I'm not sure what relevance the terms "frauds" or "charlatans" has to a discussion of what makes a human's existence of value. It's quite a bit more complicated than that.

You call a life without God "an absolute nightmare" - why? What distinguishes your life without God as being different than a heroin addict's life without it?

Yet another statement based in nothing but your faith in the truth of your brand of atheism.

Ahhh, the ol' "your faith in atheism is as weak, as, ahhhh, my faith in, ahhhh, my God". That's quite the endorsement!

You just changed the subject. I could explain to you the importance of diligence and the use of wisdom and intellectual rigor all throughout the history of the Christian church, but I dont think that you are interested.

Like I said before, this rigor just stops, at some arbitrary point. It all boils down to "God is incomprehensible, so there", as if that satisfies. Whenever faced with the paradoxes and less-than-desirable outcomes of their belief in God, believers always end at the above comment - which is nearly worthless.

You live your life to experience a chemical reaction and it's effect on your central nervous system? Are you nothing more than a drug addict?

Are you a God-addict?

It is the logical conlclusion of secular humanism. Just wait until things get a little bit tougher for humans in this country. You'll see how well secular humanistic ethics hold up in the face of raw survival. Secular humanism is more fraught with contradictions and paradoxes than science itself.

As if we humans can't figure out a moral code all on our very own - we invented your God, for starters...

Let's just hope your God doesn't tell you that your survival depends on ridding the world of us unbelievers. We'll see how your God-given ethics matches up then, won't we?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Fair enough - then the relationship between your God and this arbitrary First Causer is semantic game-playing. For all you know, the Uncaused Causer made your God...

Not by the definition of God that I have found to be true. That's not part of this issue though. That's a whole other thing. The first cause is for the atheist to ponder. I was once there, but now I am quite content with the understanding that I have come to know about the nature of God. I have much to learn, just as anyone else, but I am convinced by the truths I have learned and by my experience.

The first cause problem poses a difficult conundrum for the atheist. It proposes that at some point another answer other than "it just is" has to be reasoned to address the fact that something other than causality had to place the chain in motion. It seems unreasonable to conclude that causality begat causality from emptiness. Those are two principles that stand at odds with one another. You either have to conclude that Newton's Third Law is a picture of a piece of much more elegant mechanism that functions to uphold or support a higher nature of the hierarchical framework of the interaction of systems in the universe, or that the first cause was set in motion by a principle or thing that we do not understand. Either way you are in a situation that should at least be uncomfortable to reason.

In short, positing an Uncaused Causer gets you absolutely nowhere...

It gets you to a possible beginning. Where there is a beginning, there is the possibility of a system of sorts that is a beginner. A mover. A player. An ignitor. Whether we give this beginner characteristics at this point is irrelevant. It is only the possibility of a system of beginning that is important. By all means, that is possible within the bounds of much of the creation theory in science. In fact, the big bang proposes an event based on a beginning, on a first cause. While the big bang needs to be tweaked, it is the most widely accepted theory of cosmology in modern naturalistic philosophy and there is evidence that it is in some fashion a representative account of some event that displays characteristics of a beginning of the universe.

[W*GS]

Not by the definition of God that I have found to be true.

What's your definition of your God, and, how is it that your definition is the right one?

The first cause is for the atheist to ponder.

Whereas the believer just posits God as the Uncaused Causer and thus ceases his exploration of the issue. Never mind he not-so-adroitly sidestepped the issue, and thus didn't answer it at all...

The first cause problem poses a difficult conundrum for the atheist.

Actually, no - it poses the exact same problem for the theist - just that the theist isn't intellectually honest enough to admit it.

The Big Bang need not be the beginning of everything - merely an event that precludes knowledge of what happened before, insofar as we understand what time is. But that's more of a philosophical discussion than a cosmological one.

The rest of your post is old ground, not terribly interesting to rehash.

[Bronco Bob]

[QUOTE=Bronco Bob;1578537]

Something caused it to happen. At least that's what Newton's Third Law implies.

What does Newton's 3rd Law have to do with God? All that says is
if I push on something it pushes back. I'm about to accuse you of
cargo cult science.





There you go. Something happened, right?

Doesn't mean someone made it happen.


A set of events led to the cooling of matter in the universe and set up the conditions for the behavior of matter in the immediate enviroment of every system imaginable and beyond in the universe. This is the causal chain I was referring to.

Anytime something expands it cools off. Take a CO2 fire extinguisher, which
is filled with liquid CO2. Squeeze the handle. The expanding gas gets
so cold it forms snow. Same sort of thing with the universe, it started out
very hot, and as it expanded it cooled off.

At the end of that chain is something that we do not understand. We might never understand it fully, because all we will be able to determine is that forces acted upon it in some way that left a little evidence in the big bang itself.

What fun would it be if we understood everything? Societies tend to
stagnate when they think they know everything.


Anyway, at the end of the chain you have reached Plato's immoveable mover. Man is so brilliant that in the near 2500 years since Plato's life he has not been able to see beyond Plato.

Not sure what you are getting at there, are you saying Newton, Darwin,
Einstein, Feynmann, Hawkings, et al added nothing to mankind's knowledge.
I beg to differ if that is the case.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Whereas the believer just posits God as the Uncaused Causer and thus ceases his exploration of the issue. Never mind he not-so-adroitly sidestepped the issue, and thus didn't answer it at all...

That's an assumption of yours, not a statement that encapsulates the opinion of Christian intellectualism. Check out some of the modern thinkers...Ward, Peacocke. No "issue" is sidestepped. Christian intellectuals are just like any other, and the greatest minds in the world come through places like Oxford, Cambridge, and MIT where you will find quite an array of Christian intellectuals.

Actually, no - it poses the exact same problem for the theist - just that the theist isn't intellectually honest enough to admit it.

The problem is quite simple for the theist, really. It remains open-ended for the atheist. It is not a true statement that all theists approach the first cause and shirk from the possibilities. You continue to add emotive statements to a discussion that should not include them. I'm not sure what you are attempting there, but it is the same tactic used by Dawkins.

The Big Bang need not be the beginning of everything - merely an event that precludes knowledge of what happened before, insofar as we understand what time is. But that's more of a philosophical discussion than a cosmological one.

A cosmological discussion is a philosophical discussion. We are discussing philosophies right now.

The rest of your post is old ground, not terribly interesting to rehash.

Why the need to post Dawkins if you are only in search of new, interesting material?

[alkemical]

[QUOTE=angryllama;1578547]

What does Newton's 3rd Law have to do with God? All that says is
if I push on something it pushes back. I'm about to accuse you of
cargo cult science.







Doesn't mean someone made it happen.



Anytime something expands it cools off. Take a CO2 fire extinguisher, which
is filled with liquid CO2. Squeeze the handle. The expanding gas gets
so cold it forms snow. Same sort of thing with the universe, it started out
very hot, and as it expanded it cooled off.



What fun would it be if we understood everything? Societies tend to
stagnate when they think they know everything.



Not sure what you are getting at there, are you saying Newton, Darwin,
Einstein, Feynmann, Hawkings, et al added nothing to mankind's knowledge.
I beg to differ if that is the case.



So why can't god use physics in a way that we don't quite understand. We don't know how the bioelectric field of a human has interactions with other living things that also contain a BEF?

Equiv. Exchange is a science and from what i've seen and tested in my own life appears to be a valid truth.

[W*GS]

(I've noticed you bailed on providing your definition of your God...)

That's an assumption of yours, not a statement that encapsulates the opinion of Christian intellectualism. Check out some of the modern thinkers...Ward, Peacocke.

I'll look into them...

The problem is quite simple for the theist, really.

Not "simple", but "simplistic" is the word you want. The theist posits his God as the First Cause, and then walks away, secure in his faith...

It remains open-ended for the atheist. It is not a true statement that all theists approach the first cause and shirk from the possibilities.

About the only path they can follow from not making their God the First Cause is demoting their God to "a god". Being honest about it would rock their faith into demolition.

Why the need to post Dawkins if you are only in search of new, interesting material?

I like to prod believers from time to time...

[epicSocialism4tw]

I like to prod believers from time to time...

Well, if antagonism was your goal, there is no better choice than Dawkins.

If it's challenge you are looking for look to someone with a broader mind.

At least you were honest. It wasnt about the discussion.

[alkemical]

I've noticed some people here who noted that they not only don't believe in god, but the lack of anything of a soul.

I have a question:

If there's no scientific proof either way to "prove" there is a soul, why would you choose to believe there is not one? Oh and before you spin it my way, i'll answer yours when you answer mine.

[W*GS]

If there's no scientific proof either way to "prove" there is a soul, why would you choose to believe there is not one?

There isn't scientific proof for a soul, and the concept is too ill-defined to merit belief. What is a "soul", anyway?

[W*GS]

It's curious to me that believers get upset when someone questions their belief. Is not the personal relationship they have with their God secure enough to ward off any unbeliever's comments?

[alkemical]

There isn't scientific proof for a soul, and the concept is too ill-defined to merit belief. What is a "soul", anyway?

I asked the very same thing Wags. But also noted how you also selectivly say There's no proof to define it either way - yet you still say you BELIEVE there is no soul. Since the dawn of mankind - use of religion, spirituality and science still have not figured out the answer. You are showing that you are defining reality based upon a belief you have. You have designed your own reality.

Is it aiken to plato defining a soul as being seperate from the physical body, or maybe it's the way of the buddah where a soul is not different than your being. Maybe it boils down to where Timothy Leary & Robert Anton Wilson pushed on trying to define if the brain is hardware/software or both?

Since there's no clear definition Wags, i'll ask again - why CHOOSE to not believe in a soul? You said yourself you don't believe in one - and with no scientific proof that living consiousness is definable - so why CHOOSE to BELIEVE that?

Really when it gets down to it, it doesn't much matter to me. That's your CHOICE to BELIEVE that.

[alkemical]

It's curious to me that believers get upset when someone questions their belief. Is not the personal relationship they have with their God secure enough to ward off any unbeliever's comments?

I didn't realize engaging you in discussion meant i was upset. LOL
Of course I chalk this post up as fishing-bait.

[BroncoInferno]

I asked the very same thing Wags. But also noted how you also selectivly say There's no proof to define it either way - yet you still say you BELIEVE there is no soul. Since the dawn of mankind - use of religion, spirituality and science still have not figured out the answer. You are showing that you are defining reality based upon a belief you have. You have designed your own reality.

Is it aiken to plato defining a soul as being seperate from the physical body, or maybe it's the way of the buddah where a soul is not different than your being. Maybe it boils down to where Timothy Leary & Robert Anton Wilson pushed on trying to define if the brain is hardware/software or both?

Since there's no clear definition Wags, i'll ask again - why CHOOSE to not believe in a soul? You said yourself you don't believe in one - and with no scientific proof that living consiousness is definable - so why CHOOSE to BELIEVE that?

Really when it gets down to it, it doesn't much matter to me. That's your CHOICE to BELIEVE that.

I know this question was directed towards W*GS, but as I also do not not believe the soul exists, I'll offer my answer:

I choose not to believe in the soul for the same reason I choose not to believe in the Baal, Allah, and the Flying Spagetti Monster. There's no proof. Your whole notion about "creating reality" is just silly in this context, as there are literally an infinite number of ridiculous things one could make up, and based on your definition lack of belief in those ridiculous notions would constitute a belief system. That is absurd. Why don't you believe in invisible marathon monkies racing around Saturn's ring? Do you have a belief system centered around that lack of belief?

[alkemical]

I know this question was directed towards W*GS, but as I also do not not believe the soul exists, I'll offer my answer:

I choose not to believe in the soul for the same reason I choose not to believe in the Baal, Allah, and the Flying Spagetti Monster. There's no proof. Your whole notion about "creating reality" is just silly in this context, as there are literally an infinite number of ridiculous things one could make up, and based on your definition lack of belief in those ridiculous notions would constitute a belief system. That is absurd. Why don't you believe in invisible marathon monkies racing around Saturn's ring? Do you have a belief system centered around that lack of belief?

So if there's no proof either way, you are still selecting what to believe, correct?

[BroncoInferno]

So if there's no proof either way, you are still selecting what to believe, correct?

I know you think you are making some sort of point of equivalancy here, but you aren't in any sense. There is a difference between accepting a notion on blind faith versus accepting something based on observable evidence. I choose not to believe in The Pull-Up Champion from Mars for the same reason, along with any infinite number of things one could make up. Are they ALL belief systems? The trouble with the argument is that it presumes a difference between legitimacy in soul belief versus Spagetti Monster belief, and there is no difference. Both are made up and absurd with no evidence to support their existence.

[alkemical]

I know you think you are making some sort of point of equivalancy here, but you aren't in any sense. There is a difference between accepting a notion on blind faith versus accepting something based on observable evidence. I choose not to believe in The Pull-Up Champion from Mars for the same reason, along with any infinite number of things one could make up. Are they ALL belief systems? The trouble with the argument is that it presumes a difference between legitimacy in soul belief versus Spagetti Monster belief, and there is no difference. Both are made up and absurd with no evidence to support their existence.

That's fine, that's your cop-out. But you have even stated yourself there is no proof there is a soul, which means there's no proof there isn't one either, correct? Science cannot prove if one exists or doesn't exist. Until concsiousness is defined and there is a determinable answer to this question - you're still selectivly choosing your reality. Using any form of science, with no answer that is concrete and ruling it: "False" - is rather irresponsible to science and the scientific method - and negates any principles of science on which you stand. You use the fantastical extreme's to try to prove a point of your own bias and you miss. I wasn't talking specifically god here when you jumped in, i was talking about a soul. I'm sorry that i'm proving a point and you just don't like the answer.

Besides, if everything is a chemical reaction in the brain, then you don't really love your significant other, parents, children. Since, well - there's no proof love actually exists.

[BroncoInferno]

That's fine, that's your cop-out. But you have even stated yourself there is no proof there is a soul, which means there's no proof there isn't one either, correct? Science cannot prove if one exists or doesn't exist. Yet you use the fantastical extreme's to try to prove a point and you miss. I'm sorry that i'm proving a point and you just don't like the answer.

You aren't proving a point of any kind. Because one cannot disprove a negative does make belief in that negative reasonable. What you don't seem to get is that soul belief is no different than what you just deemed "fanastical extremes." Soul belief and Spaghetti monster belief are equally unlikely and absurd.

[alkemical]

You aren't proving a point of any kind. Because one cannot disprove a negative does make belief in that negative reasonable. What you don't seem to get is that soul belief is no different that what you just deemed "fanastical extremes." Soul belief and Spaghetti monster belief are equally unlikely and absurd.

No i do understand that. That's where you are failing in trying to discuss this with me - and that's why you get frustrated in thinking it's a circular discussion. You don't, by your own admission - like to be catagorized into believing anything - yet you've stated you numerous times - that you build a belief structure on faith that something does not exist, because it hasn't been proven.

I'm sorry, i don't know how to convey that you have built a belief structure to explain things around you, yourself that has no proof. I'm sorry, don't get upset at me that you believe in things that have no proof. Take it up with your ID. ;)

[alkemical]

BroncoInferno - i've also noticed you didn't touch on the comment about "love".

Love is just a chemical reaction to the brain: True or False.

[BroncoInferno]

BroncoInferno - i've also noticed you didn't touch on the comment about "love".

Love is just a chemical reaction to the brain: True or False.

Love is an observable phenomena. The soul is not. That is why I skipped over that part of your post...the two aren't related.

[BroncoInferno]

No i do understand that. That's where you are failing in trying to discuss this with me - and that's why you get frustrated in thinking it's a circular discussion. You don't, by your own admission - like to be catagorized into believing anything - yet you've stated you numerous times - that you build a belief structure on faith that something does not exist, because it hasn't been proven.

I'm sorry, i don't know how to convey that you have built a belief structure to explain things around you, yourself that has no proof. I'm sorry, don't get upset at me that you believe in things that have no proof. Take it up with your ID. ;)

Here we go again...my lack of belief in a soul is not a structural belief any more than my not believing in Zeus is a structural belief. It's about observation, not belief.

Answer me this...is my not believing in Brawny the Paper Towel Man a belief system?

[alkemical]

Love is an observable phenomena. The soul is not. That is why I skipped over that part of your post...the two aren't related.

Not really, well not beyond the chemical reactions to the brain. Just like "Red" doesn't really exist, it's just a chemical reaction in the brain.

[alkemical]

Here we go again...my lack of belief in a soul is not a structural belief any more than my not believing in Zeus is a structural belief. It's about observation, not belief.

Answer me this...is my not believing in Brawny the Paper Towel Man a belief system?


Still tap-dancing.

By using the scientific method - in which neuroscientists, quantum scientists, Those in psycology, and philosophers cannot prove or disprove a soul. So why do you CHOOSE to disbelieve in a soul if there's no proof either way. That's the root of the question, which you still don't answer. I could care less about zeus, or the pasta man, etc.

[BroncoInferno]

Still tap-dancing.

By using the scientific method - in which neuroscientists, quantum scientists, Those in psycology, and philosophers cannot prove or disprove a soul. So why do you CHOOSE to disbelieve in a soul if there's no proof either way. That's the root of the question, which you still don't answer. I could care less about zeus, or the pasta man, etc.

I'm not tap-dancing...I've answered your question repeatedly. I don't believe in a soul because there is no proof, period. What would compel me to believe in something for which no proof of any kind exists? Even people who actually believe in the soul cannot provide any sort of consistent description of the properties and function(s) of the soul, rendering the whole idea incoherent. You are tap dancing by ignoring my question:

Is my lack of belief in Brawny the Paper Towel Man a belief system just as you claim my lack of belief in the soul is a belief system? If not, why not?

[alkemical]

I'm not tap-dancing...I've answered your question repeatedly. (a) I don't believe in a soul because there is no proof, period. (b)What would compel me to believe in something for which no proof of any kind exists? (c)Even people who actually believe in the soul cannot provide any sort of consistent description of the properties and function(s) of the soul, rendering the whole idea incoherent. You are tap dancing by ignoring my question:

Is my lack of belief in Brawny the Paper Towel Man a belief system just as you claim my lack of belief in the soul is a belief system? In not, why not?


A: There's no proof either way, you are being dishonest. You are invalidating the own methods of science in which you want to use. Thus you are using a belief to fill in the gaps to explain the world around you.

B: Because you are believing in something that has no proof. By choosing to believe that there is no soul, when proof dictates there is no definable answer. This is the error in your logic. You are believing in something that has no proof, either way.

C: That's why i keep saying with no definable definition of what consiousness is, and with all the scientists not able to PROVE there is or isn't a soul. So those that disbelieve in a soul have no more ground to stand than those that do, since it's UNPROVABLE. Therefore people choose to believe in a soul, or they choose to believe there is no soul.

You've stated you don't believe in a soul, even when there is no proof either way to it's existence. Therefore, it's a belief you have on faith, that since there is a lack of proof of a soul existing - there must be no soul. Instead of being a true man of science and stating: "There is no conclusive proof either way, we need further testing".

You see how this works and why it's so circular. Is really belief structures are built to explain the world around us. The brain is used to create realities. I can't explain to you why you choose to not believe in a soul, even when there's no concurrent evidence to point either way. That's your reality, and one you constructed using belief to explain the world around in, in a way that makes you feel comfortable.

It's obvious you are uncomfortable with the idea that belief structures include "disbeliefs" - but disbeliefs and beliefs are the same thing in the same root mater of psychology.

[W*GS]

Define what you mean by "soul", first.

[Bronco Bob]

I've noticed some people here who noted that they not only don't believe in god, but the lack of anything of a soul.

I have a question:

If there's no scientific proof either way to "prove" there is a soul, why would you choose to believe there is not one? Oh and before you spin it my way, i'll answer yours when you answer mine.

I guess it depends on how your brain is wired. Somer people will believe in
anything whether they have any proof of it or not. Other people are only
concerned with things they have reasonable proof of. There are lots of
things we can't prove, should we believe every story we hear, with no proof
to back it up? If you have no proof, how do you sort out the nonsense from
the facts?

[alkemical]

Define what you mean by "soul", first.

Well in this discussion, i figured we are stick more or less with the Platonic sense of the term "soul". As in a seperate entity from/of the body.

Now, i personally believe it's different than what plato speaks - but i figure for the most part for western-judeo-christian socieity. I also understand that this can be used as a way for someone to change the dynamic of the discussion by changing the definition of what a "soul" is or could be.

[BroncoInferno]

A: There's no proof either way, you are being dishonest. You are invalidating the own methods of science in which you want to use. Thus you are using a belief to fill in the gaps to explain the world around you.

So, am I being dishonest when I deny the existence of Brawny the Paper Towel Man? I mean, there is no proof either way, right?

B: Because you are believing in something that has no proof. By choosing to believe that there is no soul, when proof dictates there is no definable answer. This is the error in your logic. You are believing in something that has no proof, either way.

No, there is no error in logic. When a claim is made, the burden of proof is on those who believe the claim to present evidence that supports that belief. No such burden is placed those who deny the claim, quite simply because one cannot disprove a negative.

C: That's why i keep saying with no definable definition of what consiousness is, and with all the scientists not able to PROVE there is or isn't a soul. So those that disbelieve in a soul have no more ground to stand than those that do, since it's UNPROVABLE. Therefore people choose to believe in a soul, or they choose to believe there is no soul.

Something being "UNPROVABLE" does not give both sides of the coin equal footing. Not in any sense. You refuse to touch my "Brawny the Paper Towel Man" question because you know it destroys your argument. I mean, it is "UNPROVABLE" in the exact same sense that the soul's existence is "UNPROVABLE".

You've stated you don't believe in a soul, even when there is no proof either way to it's existence. Therefore, it's a belief you have on faith

Wrong, it is a belief on evidence, not faith.

Instead of being a true man of science and stating: "There is no conclusive proof either way, we need further testing".

LOL No scientist would say that regarding the soul, anymore than they would say "There is no conclusive proof either way that Brawny the Paper Towel Man exists, we need further testing."

It's obvious you are uncomfortable with the idea that belief structures include "disbeliefs" - but disbeliefs and beliefs are the same thing in the same root mater of psychology.

No, they aren't. Disbelieving in any random thing someone makes not does make it a belief system. If it did, we would all have an infinite number of belief systems.

Why won't you answer my question about Brawny the Paper Towel Man, Josh? Based on your reasoning above, the exact same logic should apply here. There is equal evidence to support both--zero--therefore, neither idea carries any greater value than the other. You won't answer because you know it reveals the absurdity of you argument.

[Bronco Bob]

Not really, well not beyond the chemical reactions to the brain. Just like "Red" doesn't really exist, it's just a chemical reaction in the brain.

Red exists in the same way that radio waves, microwaves, infrared rays,
orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays exist.
Electromagnetic waves. That can be measured by electronic instuments,
as well and the chemical reactions they can produce. What electronic
gadgets can be used to measure a soul, and are they refined enough
to sort out an evil soul and a good soul?

[alkemical]

I guess it depends on how your brain is wired. Somer people will believe in anything whether they have any proof of it or not. Other people are only concerned with things they have reasonable proof of. There are lots of things we can't prove, should we believe every story we hear, with no proof to back it up? If you have no proof, how do you sort out the nonsense fromthe facts?


This is a question on intellectual ethics:

If something is unprovable, how do you define if it is false? What's the problem with stating "I/We/Us don't know"? The problem with this discussion, is that there's on proof either way, yet you have people whom believe there is a soul - and those that believe there is no soul - even though there is no evidence either way. So if you are one of those people that are only concered with reasonable proof - then the reasonable answer would be "I don't know", instead of - "It is this way because (insert blind faith here)". Since no proof exists either way, it's nothing more than bind faith really - in stating IF a soul exists. If no have no proof, what's the harm in stating: "This is plausible, but until we do more testing - that's the answer we have".

That's what i'm trying to get at: With no definable proof - people are picking which side to believe. So belief exists in both forms.

[alkemical]

Red exists in the same way that radio waves, microwaves, infrared rays,
orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays exist.
Electromagnetic waves. That can be measured by electronic instuments,
as well and the chemical reactions they can produce. What electronic
gadgets can be used to measure a soul, and are they refined enough
to sort out an evil soul and a good soul?

Yes but "red" still doesn't exist, it's a chemical reaction in the brain - and we humans invented the word red to describe it. But then you go back to my question on if the human bio-electric field interacts with the environment around you - and if it does - it opens up a whole new realm of quantum mechanics on really designing your own reality.

But back on topic - maybe the machine hasn't been designed yet that can see if there is a soul. (And as i've stated to wags - in discussion i'm using soul in the most understood terms in western culture, not as in how i personally believe what a soul is). Since it's still as yet undefinable, should we just stop and write it off? Or should we continue to probe consciousness & the soul concept?

[Bronco Bob]

This is a question on intellectual ethics:

If something is unprovable, how do you define if it is false? What's the problem with stating "I/We/Us don't know"? The problem with this discussion, is that there's on proof either way, yet you have people whom believe there is a soul - and those that believe there is no soul - even though there is no evidence either way. So if you are one of those people that are only concered with reasonable proof - then the reasonable answer would be "I don't know", instead of - "It is this way because (insert blind faith here)". Since no proof exists either way, it's nothing more than bind faith really - in stating IF a soul exists. If no have no proof, what's the harm in stating: "This is plausible, but until we do more testing - that's the answer we have".

That's what i'm trying to get at: With no definable proof - people are picking which side to believe. So belief exists in both forms.

But what I am saying is there are an infinite number of unproven ideas.
So are we to believe in everything we hear? If so, how do you sort
out contradictory ideas. When trying to design a lifestyle, how do
you decide which belief is valid, believing in a soul or believing in engrams?
Or wouldn't it be better to make decisions based on factual evidence?

[Bronco Bob]

Yes but "red" still doesn't exist, it's a chemical reaction in the brain - and we humans invented the word red to describe it.

Not true, 700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation has existed since
the universe was formed. That English speaking people choose to call
700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation "red" is irrelevant to it's
existance. 700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation would still
exist whether there were English speaking people calling it red or not.
And like I said, there are many ways to measure 700 nM wavelength
electromagnetic radiation besides using chemicals in the retina to
convert 700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation into chemicals
and electrical nerve impulses.




But then you go back to my question on if the human bio-electric field interacts with the environment around you - and if it does - it opens up a whole new realm of quantum mechanics on really designing your own reality.

But back on topic - maybe the machine hasn't been designed yet that can see if there is a soul. (And as i've stated to wags - in discussion i'm using soul in the most understood terms in western culture, not as in how i personally believe what a soul is). Since it's still as yet undefinable, should we just stop and write it off? Or should we continue to probe consciousness & the soul concept?

So shouldn't we wait until there is a machine that can prove souls exist
before we decide to build our lives around one? What's the advantage of
living a life based on something that may or may not be? Couldn't your time
be better spent playing video games or riding a bicycle or having sex with your wife?

[alkemical]

But what I am saying is there are an infinite number of unproven ideas.
So are we to believe in everything we hear? If so, how do you sort
out contradictory ideas. When trying to design a lifestyle, how do
you decide which belief is valid, believing in a soul or believing in engrams?
Or wouldn't it be better to make decisions based on factual evidence?

Are you to disbelief everything you hear as well? I don't really know, or maybe care to sort out contradictory ideas, esp. if both are plausible and can be true. (Which is why i sort of life by: Nothing is true, everything is permitted) Why do you need me to tell you what is valid, aren't they both valid? How can you make a decision with factual evidence, if factual evidence tells you "I don't know"?

[alkemical]

Not true, 700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation has existed since
the universe was formed. That English speaking people choose to call
700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation "red" is irrelevant to it's
existance. 700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation would still
exist whether there were English speaking people calling it red or not.
And like I said, there are many ways to measure 700 nM wavelength
electromagnetic radiation besides using chemicals in the retina to
convert 700 nM wavelength electromagnetic radiation into chemicals
and electrical nerve impulses.





So shouldn't we wait until there is a machine that can prove souls exist
before we decide to build our lives around one? What's the advantage of
living a life based on something that may or may not be? Couldn't your time
be better spent playing video games or riding a bicycle or having sex with your wife?


A) That's my point - though - right? Red exists even though it's just a label for that spectrum, correct? That exists before we had the machine to tell us it exists....

B) That's up to you (on waiting), but why should you dictate to others that living a spritual life is a waste, if it's not provable? The items of sex, video games, riding a bike: A) You are asking a subjective question. I may find hiking better than bike riding, etc.... B) I didn't know you couldn't do those if you were spirtually inclined. I mean, after all the hindu's have a vast collection of sex yoga material.

[W*GS]

Well in this discussion, i figured we are stick more or less with the Platonic sense of the term "soul". As in a seperate entity from/of the body.

OK... What is it made of?

[Odysseus]

I am a divine instrument of God. Be blessed and walk in darkness no more. You are all saved and called to do God's work whether you work for good or from evil. Let me clarify myself so you can be properly offended.

First of all God said "I am". End of thread. Who did he say this to. He said this to me. Since I am the singular authority in my post I borrow Christ's crown and deem all my ramblings to be blessed forever. Amen. Since I claim no ownership to the crown I give back to Christ his crown and any disagreements you have with me are now with him. I don't have to say any more on it because I said my peace.

Since I am the created born with that a certain HUGE lack of information that
we all share don't want to waste hour of my life mentally jacking off over issues that I have already decided to be true. I leave you again with the noble problem that you have burdened yourself with and shall focus on where MY joy come from. Surely I am a debtor as are all of you to the wombs, hearts, and minds that have blessed us. Where do those connections come from? We are all arrogant. I make my boast in jest but in truth "every knee shall bow" whether to rot, ruin or redemption. ALL is not a sub group.

Life is simplicity. Since I enjoy all people and am no discerner of man I shall dub you all Christians so that when your appointed time comes you might have hope of being saved. Write down this date. I might end up being important to you. Thus speakth the Tiger. I go out on the road's of Iraq with Atheists everyday who scream out the name of Jesus. You don't know who you are until you are tested. You don't know what you believe until you are weighed.

Atheists are Christians who are stuck on questions. To provide them certainty is for them a kind of hell since they are purists and enjoy the discovery of life. They do not believe in a creator but in so many ways love the creation more than they should. It is this love that torments them as their ultimate desire revealed is only one word...more. I have several very good friends who are atheists they cringe at my poor simple mind.

Deists are Christians who never found a decent Christian church home.

Theorists are Christians who have never figured out they were just Deists who may or may not have found a church home but want to be atheists but know just a little too much to walk that path but even then they want to be sure.

Islam, Judiasim, Buddhism, and all the many ISMS are just various understandings of sound and light meditation. They are Christians with a different point of view about Jesus. They all acknowledge Christ but differ on how they figured out that he was real.

In truth most Christians are Deists who have never understood their own faith of taken the time to "start over" and get it right. They stumble along like wrecking balls not understanding the full weight and measure of the blessing they were literally born into. There mistakes magnified create new churches daily and ultimately each man is a church but no man is an island.

I indeed have thrown some crap on the wall and I have blessed it thus it must be good. I don't need justification, notification, update, approval or scientific blessing. If I am going to be presumptive than I don't have to prove crap. It's my idea. I am the source. I am the creator. Suck it up you sorry half baked Christians.

God say "I am". God invites all of you into his holy work and through your own self discovery to find Jesus. The bible is not a book of certainty. No man knows the day or hour. The bible is a book of questions. The question to you, as to all manner Christian remains the same.

Who do YOU say that I AM is?

As lord master of this post I bless you all to gain at least a smile from my foolishness but in my errand in hypocrisy you might forgive my manner of deliverance and forbear my weakness to find yet some small glistening grain of truth that would suit God's own purpose as in the book of Job when noone could answer the tormentors of Job. Perhaps I too have failed.

:angel: Peace :angel:

[alkemical]

OK... What is it made of?


I don't know Gary, it depends on whom you ask. ;)

That's the whole reason why (for me personally) - I say it's irresponsible to write it off, if there's no conclusive proof either way. For me, it wouldn't matter if it's a chemical/light reaction on a set of neurons and we find out the brain is a quantum computer that completely designs reality based upon biological and environmental input, coupled with an intelligence that is able/capable of changing it's "self" by reprogramming its software/rewiring its hardware. Just as the opposite were true, that if the early pagans were right, and life is the Aethyr - the 5th element.

[alkemical]

So, am I being dishonest when I deny the existence of Brawny the Paper Towel Man? I mean, there is no proof either way, right?



No, there is no error in logic. When a claim is made, the burden of proof is on those who believe the claim to present evidence that supports that belief. No such burden is placed those who deny the claim, quite simply because one cannot disprove a negative.



Something being "UNPROVABLE" does not give both sides of the coin equal footing. Not in any sense. You refuse to touch my "Brawny the Paper Towel Man" question because you know it destroys your argument. I mean, it is "UNPROVABLE" in the exact same sense that the soul's existence is "UNPROVABLE".



Wrong, it is a belief on evidence, not faith.



LOL No scientist would say that regarding the soul, anymore than they would say "There is no conclusive proof either way that Brawny the Paper Towel Man exists, we need further testing."



No, they aren't. Disbelieving in any random thing someone makes not does make it a belief system. If it did, we would all have an infinite number of belief systems.

Why won't you answer my question about Brawny the Paper Towel Man, Josh? Based on your reasoning above, the exact same logic should apply here. There is equal evidence to support both--zero--therefore, neither idea carries any greater value than the other. You won't answer because you know it reveals the absurdity of you argument.



The brawny paper towel man is a fallicy that you invented to be false. You know it's a marketing strategy to give a face to a consumer product, to give it an identifiable character. You aren't using the same criteria used for the discussion. This is why i called you irresponsible & dishonest. But nothing could stop you from worshipping the brawney paper towel man if you so desired. So the brawney paper towel man argument is false - Since well i've seen the brawney paper towel man on TV.... ;)

You made a claim that the soul is false, therefore - i'm waiting on proof from you to show it's false. if something is unprovable, how can you prove it one way or the other? How can you have belief on evidence, when the evidence states that is inconclusive? (since in this discussion, i've never claimed either side were "true", just there's no definite answer and that leaves the door open to "maybe") That's bad logic and dishonest. End of story.

Also your comments on infinite # of realities one can believe - it's very true - that's what imagination and creativity are for. Change the words you use, see how your reality changes. Interact with people different - see how your reality changes. Belief shapes reality, end of story. Until you realize that, i don't really have much to discuss with you - since you are being dishonest & irresponsible in the discussion in order to prove your own ego correct.

Have a good day!

[Bob]

Since God was created in Man's image, and the concept of God provides no value, there's no reason to maintain that concept.

Sorta like Ptolemy's celestial mechanics.

Ironically there is some truth to the statement that mankind does tend to create god’s after their own likeliness. Whether it is intellectualism, atheism, or any ism – this tendency to worship images that reflect their own “values” is limiting, and damning (in the sense that it limits the soul’s progression.)

You have made the argument well in the past that God holds no value to you (but you arrogantly claim that God can hold no value anyone else on the planet.) I don’t think you were able to concede in the past that there is any benefit to those struggling with addiction, or other great challenges. Unless you are a spirit chaneler, and able to crawl into the heads and hearts of billions, then your statement that God holds no value to anyone, has to, but its very definition apply to what you have seen and experienced. I think that it is unfortunate that you have seen so many bad examples.

You seem like a very bright guy, this is not meant to be an affront, but it is ok to consider the views of others on this issue, and listen to their experiences. In an on-line context, it may be more fun to blast away, and has to be one the worst environments to learn about “spiritual things” Your conclusion is that others who believe in God are deluded – it is your right to believe that. Is that your conviction based on seeing folks that are religious act like jerks (or worse?) Is it your interpretation of the “facts” i.e. evolution, inconsistencies in religious doctrine, or is it because you feel “a need” to not believe? This need for some folks becomes a religion in itself. I do wonder about those that hold to some falsehoods (what I believe to be false) that seem to help that person get through tough periods of time until they could learn additional truths and add to what knowledge base they have. I am not sure if that makes sense to you, but look at children and how they learn – tooth fairies and Santa aren’t all that evil are they? They are not real, but what they represent (and stories like them) throughout the world seem to serve an important purpose in childhood development.

Now as folks mature, they have hard decisions to make regarding what in this world is real. We can see the physical, natural world and know that it is real. For many folks that is it, the “seeing is believing principle” those things that can’t be proved must be held at arms length as something that corrupts the rational mind. There are folks that take it one step further, that believe that not only should a person not believe in spiritual things, but seem to allow contempt to grow for those that hold onto the notion. For me the physical world shows teaches me about the Creator. For me some of the proofs that I have seen could only be found in attempting to forgo contempt for spiritual things long enough to try out certain principles long enough to see the results – I was surprised about the degree of “proof” that I received. Shocked actually.

I know this message may come across as condescending, I wish I could write better --there are a lot of issues, and personal hypocrisy that I struggle with all of the time – on some days I want to smash the ideas that I see that are harmful in others, on other days I want to understand, as well as be understood.

For what it is worth…

[BroncoInferno]

The brawny paper towel man is a fallicy that you invented to be false. You know it's a marketing strategy to give a face to a consumer product, to give it an identifiable character. You aren't using the same criteria used for the discussion. This is why i called you irresponsible & dishonest. But nothing could stop you from worshipping the brawney paper towel man if you so desired. So the brawney paper towel man argument is false - Since well i've seen the brawney paper towel man on TV.... ;)

You made a claim that the soul is false, therefore - i'm waiting on proof from you to show it's false. if something is unprovable, how can you prove it one way or the other? How can you have belief on evidence, when the evidence states that is inconclusive? (since in this discussion, i've never claimed either side were "true", just there's no definite answer and that leaves the door open to "maybe") That's bad logic and dishonest. End of story.

Also your comments on infinite # of realities one can believe - it's very true - that's what imagination and creativity are for. Change the words you use, see how your reality changes. Interact with people different - see how your reality changes. Belief shapes reality, end of story. Until you realize that, i don't really have much to discuss with you - since you are being dishonest & irresponsible in the discussion in order to prove your own ego correct.

Have a good day!

There is no dishonesty in stating that The Brawny Paper Towel Man has as much probability of existing and as much evidence to prove its existence as the soul. End of story. Your absurd circular reasoning is your own attempt to inflate YOUR ego by implying you have some sort of greater understanding about the nature of reality than the rest of us. Quite simply, you don't.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I know you think you are making some sort of point of equivalancy here, but you aren't in any sense. There is a difference between accepting a notion on blind faith versus accepting something based on observable evidence. I choose not to believe in The Pull-Up Champion from Mars for the same reason, along with any infinite number of things one could make up. Are they ALL belief systems? The trouble with the argument is that it presumes a difference between legitimacy in soul belief versus Spagetti Monster belief, and there is no difference. Both are made up and absurd with no evidence to support their existence.

What do you believe of the beginning of life on the planet earth?

[alkemical]

There is no dishonesty in stating that The Brawny Paper Towel Man has as much probability of existing and as much evidence to prove its existence as the soul. End of story. Your absurd circular reasoning is your own attempt to inflate YOUR ego by implying you have some sort of greater understanding about the nature of reality than the rest of us. Quite simply, you don't.

Not at all. The disagreement comes from you not wanting (for lack of better terms) to understand that with no scientific evidence either way - you use faith in an unprovable solution. As in, there is no soul - when scientifically - there's no evidence to support either case. Since for me, it doesn't matter if you don't believe in a soul - and what does matter is that you don't identify the failed deductions in your logic that X=X - is where the crux of the problem is.

X=Y is not the true X

X=X

(x) No scientific proof exists to prove or disprove a "soul" = (x) Possiblity of a soul exists.

X = Y
(x) No scientific proof exists to prove/disprove a soul = (y) therefore it doesn't exist

No scientific proof exists to prove/disprove a soul = (y)therefore it does exist

Again - with no proof either way - you are going on nothing but faith and believe on your POV. Whereas i just don't know and have any number of possiblities (ie: realities) of what a soul can/could/could not be - all the whilst understanding that soul may be a misnomer - and really nothing more than the hard wiring of the brain that predisposes someone to that belief (as well as influence of external stimuli).

that's where the difference is between you and I, the only reason it's circular - is because you keep chasing after something false - when false doesn't exist in this discussion - since there is neither true or false.


Thanks again!

[Bob]

I'm not tap-dancing...I've answered your question repeatedly. I don't believe in a soul because there is no proof, period. What would compel me to believe in something for which no proof of any kind exists? Even people who actually believe in the soul cannot provide any sort of consistent description of the properties and function(s) of the soul, rendering the whole idea incoherent. You are tap dancing by ignoring my question:

Is my lack of belief in Brawny the Paper Towel Man a belief system just as you claim my lack of belief in the soul is a belief system? If not, why not?

My beliefs are not what many Christians believe the soul to be (well at least not during the past 1800 years or so anyway –there were different beliefs that were held prior to a general falling away of many correct doctrines shortly after many of the original disciples died.) Many ideas regarding the nature of God, and the human soul were essentially voted out of existence in 325 AD, other truths were “lost” before that counsel was even held.

Defining the soul like many existential concepts (like God can be for some folks) can be hard. If you were to describe the taste of salt to another, how can that be done effectively? “It is salty” that is a crappy description, or it is not sweet, it is not bitter (we then only describe what it isn’t – not what it is.) Describing the spiritual world, which is first understood through those things experiential it is a difficult proposition – when the person who doesn’t believe feels that others with conviction are only experiencing a chemical reaction at best, how can I convince someone with that stance? The answer is a person cannot be convinced against their will. I do think that people can conduct spiritual experiments so to speak by trying out things like prayer, and asking God for understanding, not signs. But I suspect, that would feel silly at best. There are answers to many of the spiritual questions out there, which are not devoid of depth or historical backing.

The soul may be similar to the before mentioned ideas, but let me share some thoughts, that are sacred to me, but I will give it a shot.

What the soul is: First off the soul is used scripturally several different ways, one definition of soul can be used interchangeably with the word spirit. I believe, however, a mare full definition of Soul is that the Soul is comprised spirit & the body. The soul is made up of light, or intelligence that cannot be created (in the sense of what many understand “creation” to mean.) The word “create” in Hebrew means to reform or shape existing material. Most feel that creation is creating something out of nothing – this I think is a false notion. The elements that make up the spirit are eternal; they have always existed in some form and were only organized by God. In essence we are, in a very real sense made of the same base materials as God is (as blasphemous as this concept is to some.) The spirit itself is actually made up of matter; it is just refined or more pure than other types of matter.

[BroncoInferno]

Correct me if wrong, Bob, but the Bible never specifically mentions the "soul", does it? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just can't ever recall such a thing being directly mentioned in my Biblical readings.

[BroncoInferno]

Not at all. The disagreement comes from you not wanting (for lack of better terms) to understand that with no scientific evidence either way - you use faith in an unprovable solution. As in, there is no soul - when scientifically - there's no evidence to support either case.

Which brings me back to my point on the Brawny Paper Towel Man. The point I'm trying to make is that, like the soul, there is no scientific evidence to support its existence. Now, based on your reasoning, my lack of belief in Brawny is no more valid than if one were to believe he did exist. That's where I have a problem with you reasoning. I will say that one cannot CONCLUSIVELY say the soul does not exist, nor can I say the Brawny Paper Towel Man conclusively does not exist. So, I do leave the door open for evidence to sway my opinion. I think where we disagree is you think one is just as reasonable as the other, when its clear that we can make judgments based on probability that tip the scales one way or another. The probability that the soul exists is not very good, and no more likely than the existence of Brawny. Probability, of course, improves the more evidence one can provide, but since zero evidence exists in either case, that means the existence is unlikely, though technically it can't be ruled out. That I will grant. But it isn't a 50-50 deal.

[W*GS]

Ironically there is some truth to the statement that mankind does tend to create god’s after their own likeliness.

Indeed - God is a creature of man. God acts and is as we wish God to be. As I've read, "Since man exists, God exists", but I interpret it quite differently.

You have made the argument well in the past that God holds no value to you (but you arrogantly claim that God can hold no value anyone else on the planet.)

I don't believe it arrogant. I consider belief in God to be something akin to a drug addiction (insert obligatory "opiate of the masses" comment here). True, a smoker "needs" her nicotine - it has great value to her. However, once the costs of her needs are taken into account, the value goes negative.

I don’t think you were able to concede in the past that there is any benefit to those struggling with addiction, or other great challenges.

Just as there are those who pray to God during tough times, there are others who do other things, or don't see a need for a God to assist them. I recall reading a story of a survivor from that DC-10 crash in Iowa some years ago who was a thoroughgoing atheist beforehand, and remained one afterwards. He saw no need, or value, in believing God as the agent of his salvation. Random chance operated in his favor, nothing more.

I don't claim that God has no value to anyone - I claim that God ought to have no value to anyone.

You seem like a very bright guy, this is not meant to be an affront, but it is ok to consider the views of others on this issue, and listen to their experiences.

I try.

Is that your conviction based on seeing folks that are religious act like jerks (or worse?) Is it your interpretation of the “facts” i.e. evolution, inconsistencies in religious doctrine, or is it because you feel “a need” to not believe?

I merely see no benefit to mankind from a belief in God. The costs associated with those beliefs don't outweigh the supposed benefits.

I am not sure if that makes sense to you, but look at children and how they learn – tooth fairies and Santa aren’t all that evil are they? They are not real, but what they represent (and stories like them) throughout the world seem to serve an important purpose in childhood development.

Interestingly, we've not raised our children to have beliefs in Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc., and they're fine.

For me the physical world shows teaches me about the Creator. For me some of the proofs that I have seen could only be found in attempting to forgo contempt for spiritual things long enough to try out certain principles long enough to see the results – I was surprised about the degree of “proof” that I received. Shocked actually.

It's experiences like yours that I interpret as having a predilection for the results you received. For example, I'll never see a UFO, or a ghost, or a vision of Jesus. I suspect that people who experience such things, somewhere in their mind, want to believe, so when they experience something that they can't readily explain, they jump to some supernatural or spiritual "explanation". I can't think of an experience that would lead me to become a theist. Sure, a stunt like depicted in the "Ten Commandments" would work, but we all know that's merely special effects and metaphor...

One thing about your message - quit beating yourself up.

[Bob]

Correct me if wrong, Bob, but the Bible never specifically mentions the "soul", does it? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just can't ever recall such a thing being directly mentioned in my Biblical readings.

No offense taken, it is everywhere in the KJ version: In Psalms alone it is mentioned more than 130 times.

Psalms, psalm 3 which say of my soul, There is no help for him in God. Selah.
Psalms, psalm 6 My soul is also sore vexed: but thou, O LORD, how long
Psalms, psalm 6 LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake.
Psalms, psalm 7 Lest he tear my soul like a lion, rending it in pieces, while there
Psalms, psalm 7 emy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life
Psalms, psalm 11 How say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?
Psalms, psalm 11 eth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he s
Psalms, psalm 13 ke counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart daily? how long sha
Psalms, psalm 16 O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lor
Psalms, psalm 16 ilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy O
Psalms, psalm 17 down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
Psalms, psalm 19 converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise
Psalms, psalm 22 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of t
Psalms, psalm 22 ep alive his own soul. A seed shall serve him; it s
Psalms, psalm 23 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness f
Psalms, psalm 24 lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
Psalms, psalm 25 do I lift up my soul. O my God, I trust in thee:
Psalms, psalm 25 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inheri
Psalms, psalm 25 O keep my soul, and deliver me: let me not be ashamed; for I pu
Psalms, psalm 26 Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life with bloody men:
Psalms, psalm 30 brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I
Psalms, psalm 31 ou hast known my soul in adversities; And hast not
Psalms, psalm 31 h grief, yea, my soul and my belly. For my life i
Psalms, psalm 33 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.
Psalms, psalm 33 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our s
Psalms, psalm 34 My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble s
Psalms, psalm 34 RD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust i
Psalms, psalm 35 e: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. Let them
Psalms, psalm 35 at seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confus
Psalms, psalm 35 digged for my soul. Let destruction come upon him
Psalms, psalm 35 And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice
Psalms, psalm 35 spoiling of my soul. But as for me, when they wer
Psalms, psalm 35 th: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine
Psalms, psalm 35 ok on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the l
Psalms, psalm 40 at seek after my soul to destroy it; let them be driven backward and
Psalms, psalm 41 unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.
Psalms, psalm 42 s, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul t
Psalms, psalm 42 My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when sh
Psalms, psalm 42 s, I pour out my soul in me: for I had gone with the multitude, I we
Psalms, psalm 42 cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou
Psalms, psalm 42 O my God, my soul is cast down within me: therefore will I remem
Psalms, psalm 42 ast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope tho
Psalms, psalm 43 ast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope in
Psalms, psalm 44 For our soul is bowed down to the dust: our belly cleaveth un
Psalms, psalm 49 emption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)
Psalms, psalm 49 d will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall rece
Psalms, psalm 49 he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee, when thou doest well
Psalms, psalm 54 rs seek after my soul: they have not set God before them. Selah.
Psalms, psalm 54 m that uphold my soul. He shall reward evil unto m
Psalms, psalm 55 h delivered my soul in peace from the battle that was against me: fo
Psalms, psalm 56 they wait for my soul. Shall they escape by iniquity
Psalms, psalm 56 ast delivered my soul from death: wilt not thou deliver my feet from
Psalms, psalm 57 unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wi
Psalms, psalm 57 My soul is among lions: and I lie even among them that
Psalms, psalm 57 for my steps; my soul is bowed down: they have digged a pit before m
Psalms, psalm 59 in wait for my soul: the mighty are gathered against me; not for my
Psalms, psalm 62 Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation.
Psalms, psalm 62 My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is
Psalms, psalm 63 I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee
Psalms, psalm 63 My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness; a
Psalms, psalm 63 My soul followeth hard after thee: thy right hand upho
Psalms, psalm 63 ose that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts
Psalms, psalm 66 hich holdeth our soul in life, and suffereth not our feet to be move
Psalms, psalm 66 hath done for my soul. I cried unto him with my m
Psalms, psalm 69 ome in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where th
Psalms, psalm 69 and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach.
Psalms, psalm 69 w nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine ene
Psalms, psalm 70 at seek after my soul: let them be turned backward, and put to confu
Psalms, psalm 71 lay wait for my soul take counsel together, Saying
Psalms, psalm 71 dversaries to my soul; let them be covered with reproach and dishono
Psalms, psalm 71 nto thee; and my soul, which thou hast redeemed.
Psalms, psalm 72 d shall save the souls of the needy. He shall redee
Psalms, psalm 72 all redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall t
Psalms, psalm 74 deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the wi
Psalms, psalm 77 d ceased not: my soul refused to be comforted. I r
Psalms, psalm 78 ared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pe
Psalms, psalm 84 My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of th
Psalms, psalm 86 Preserve my soul; for I am holy: O thou my God, save thy servan
Psalms, psalm 86 Rejoice the soul of thy servant: for unto thee, O Lord, do I li
Psalms, psalm 86 do I lift up my soul. For thou, Lord, art good, and
Psalms, psalm 86 ast delivered my soul from the lowest hell. O God
Psalms, psalm 86 sought after my soul; and have not set thee before them.
Psalms, psalm 88 For my soul is full of troubles: and my life draweth nigh
Psalms, psalm 88 test thou off my soul? why hidest thou thy face from me?
Psalms, psalm 89 he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah.
Psalms, psalm 94 been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence.
Psalms, psalm 94 forts delight my soul. Shall the throne of iniqui
Psalms, psalm 94 er against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blo
Psalms, psalm 97 preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the
Psalms, psalm 103 the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy nam
Psalms, psalm 103 s the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
Psalms, psalm 103 the LORD, O my soul.
Psalms, psalm 104 s the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art
Psalms, psalm 104 the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.
Psalms, psalm 106 nness into their soul. They envied Moses also in
Psalms, psalm 107 thirsty, their soul fainted in them. Then they cri
Psalms, psalm 107 ieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness.
Psalms, psalm 107 lleth the hungry soul with goodness. Such as sit
Psalms, psalm 107 Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw ne
Psalms, psalm 107 he depths: their soul is melted because of trouble.

[BroncoInferno]

LOL

OH...hell, I remember what it was about the soul I couldn't account for in the Bible...the idea that the soul descends to heaven immediately after death. I had a class on Christian existentialism (main focus was Kierkegaard), and our teacher challenged us to find a passage in the Bible that stated that the soul goes to heaven immediately when one dies. Is there such a passage? No one ever found one, though it was not our assignment to read the Bible cover to cover in the class. I've read the Bible end-to-end twice, but the last time was about six years ago.

[orangenblue2]

So why do you CHOOSE to disbelieve in a soul if there's no proof either way. That's the root of the question, which you still don't answer.

Good conversation going here...I can't speak for others but I'll answer your question thusly:

I CHOOSE to disbelieve in the existence of a soul because of Reason. There is no compelling empirical evidence to accept any belief in a soul, duality of man, etc.. As a non-believer, ALL of the available evidence, so far, is on my side. Invoking the bible, or god(s), or belief in the soul is unnecessary because the natural, physical, reasonable, reality-based world can be explained, nee' SUPPORTED by observable, testable, verifiable evidence. That being said, science does not completely prove that there is no soul, but who cares? Neuroscientific evidence against the existence of a soul is overwhelming. What do you believers have to match that??? That's right...faith. That's marvelous, but are we non-believers to accord that "faith" the same respect and gravitas that scientific evidence is accorded. I think not.

As for you, Claviculasolomonis, your argument that neither side of this question is "provable"; exactly what can YOU believe this "proof" involves? Another of your favorite arguments centers around the word "belief" or "believe" and it's meaning. I'll try to address that here:

If I have a ticket to Vegas that says I'll hop on a plane at 6:30 AM, I have a "belief" that I'll reach Las Vegas at 3:30 PM. I "believe" this because I've: A) been there before, B) read and saw TV and movies that depict this place, C) known lots and lots of people who have been there themselves, D) these people's stories about their trips haven't been inconsistent with any known facts or evidence that I'm aware of.

If I'm going to China, or Russia, or any other place I've not had the opportunity to visit, I could read, surf the net, read books, etc. to find the information about said country's location, customs, size, population, ad infinitum. I can look at a map or a globe and satisfy myself that such a place exists. I can even look up airline or cruise ship info telling me what time I can expect to arrive and depart. Hell, I can even line up a few things to see and do once I get there. On to the next item:

If I'm told that at some unspecified time in the future, I shall leave my physical body on earth and travel by my "soul" to some unknown place where I shall spend "eternity" in blissful happiness...am I to give this scenario equal weight to the first two? Of course not. How do I get there? Where exactly is this place? Do I know of anyone who has made the trip and returned?

I CAN believe in all three of these scenarios. I can come up with evidence for two of them. Quit making a "belief" in all three equally plausible, supportable, and verifiable...

[BroncoInferno]

Good conversation going here...I can't speak for others but I'll answer your question thusly:

I CHOOSE to disbelieve in the existence of a soul because of Reason. There is no compelling empirical evidence to accept any belief in a soul, duality of man, etc.. As a non-believer, ALL of the available evidence, so far, is on my side. Invoking the bible, or god(s), or belief in the soul is unnecessary because the natural, physical, reasonable, reality-based world can be explained, nee' SUPPORTED by observable, testable, verifiable evidence. That being said, science does not completely prove that there is no soul, but who cares? Neuroscientific evidence against the existence of a soul is overwhelming. What do you believers have to match that??? That's right...faith. That's marvelous, but are we non-believers to accord that "faith" the same respect and gravitas that scientific evidence is accorded. I think not.

As for you, Claviculasolomonis, your argument that neither side of this question is "provable"; exactly what can YOU believe this "proof" involves? Another of your favorite arguments centers around the word "belief" or "believe" and it's meaning. I'll try to address that here:

If I have a ticket to Vegas that says I'll hop on a plane at 6:30 AM, I have a "belief" that I'll reach Las Vegas at 3:30 PM. I "believe" this because I've: A) been there before, B) read and saw TV and movies that depict this place, C) known lots and lots of people who have been there themselves, D) these people's stories about their trips haven't been inconsistent with any known facts or evidence that I'm aware of.

If I'm going to China, or Russia, or any other place I've not had the opportunity to visit, I could read, surf the net, read books, etc. to find the information about said country's location, customs, size, population, ad infinitum. I can look at a map or a globe and satisfy myself that such a place exists. I can even look up airline or cruise ship info telling me what time I can expect to arrive and depart. Hell, I can even line up a few things to see and do once I get there. On to the next item:

If I'm told that at some unspecified time in the future, I shall leave my physical body on earth and travel by my "soul" to some unknown place where I shall spend "eternity" in blissful happiness...am I to give this scenario equal weight to the first two? Of course not. How do I get there? Where exactly is this place? Do I know of anyone who has made the trip and returned?

I CAN believe in all three of these scenarios. I can come up with evidence for two of them. Quit making a "belief" in all three equally plausible, supportable, and verifiable...

Very well stated. That is the point I have been trying to get across in this discussion, and you expressed it much better than I was able to.

[Bronco Bob]

What do you believe of the beginning of life on the planet earth?

But was there a hard and fast beginning? Was there one day a puddle
of chemicals and the next day that same puddle was swimming with
living organisms. Or was it more likely that as time went on the
chemicals became more and more complex and more and more lifelike.
How do you define life? Is a virus a living organism? It consists
of very complex molecules and can reproduce itself and evolve over
time. And yet in many regards a virus still acts as just a collection
of chemicals, including the ability to form crystals much like table salt
does.

[Bronco Bob]

That's the whole reason why (for me personally) - I say it's irresponsible to write it off, if there's no conclusive proof either way. For me, it wouldn't matter if it's a chemical/light reaction on a set of neurons and we find out the brain is a quantum computer that completely designs reality based upon biological and environmental input, coupled with an intelligence that is able/capable of changing it's "self" by reprogramming its software/rewiring its hardware. Just as the opposite were true, that if the early pagans were right, and life is the Aethyr - the 5th element.

Now I haven't seen this asked (pardon me if it has been) but do only humans
have a soul? Or do other intelligent animals have a soul? Does a chimp have
a soul? How about a dolphin? If it is true that all dogs go to heaven, doesn't
that imply a dog also has a soul. And if non-humans can have a soul, what
is the cut-off point? Does a mouse have a soul? Does a frog? Does a fish?
Does a clam have a soul? How about an amoeba? And is a soul just
limited to animals? Do trees have souls? How about a carrot? Or even
bacteria? Why is it valid for a human to have a soul and not a bean stalk?
I mean you can't prove a mushroom doesn't have a soul, therefore it
must have a soul too. What becomes of all the lost ant souls when I spray some Raid on my counter top?

[Bob]

LOL

OH...hell, I remember what it was about the soul I couldn't account for in the Bible...the idea that the soul descends to heaven immediately after death. I had a class on Christian existentialism (main focus was Kierkegaard), and our teacher challenged us to find a passage in the Bible that stated that the soul goes to heaven immediately when one dies. Is there such a passage? No one ever found one, though it was not our assignment to read the Bible cover to cover in the class. I've read the Bible end-to-end twice, but the last time was about six years ago.

Christ upon the cross while talking to one of the theives said "today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." I dont know about imediately, but within one day is pretty close...

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm not tap-dancing...I've answered your question repeatedly. I don't believe in a soul because there is no proof, period. What would compel me to believe in something for which no proof of any kind exists? Even people who actually believe in the soul cannot provide any sort of consistent description of the properties and function(s) of the soul, rendering the whole idea incoherent. You are tap dancing by ignoring my question:

Is my lack of belief in Brawny the Paper Towel Man a belief system just as you claim my lack of belief in the soul is a belief system? If not, why not?


Either you dont understand the question or you are avoiding it. Either way, he is asking a valid question.

In an area where there is no knowledge verified by science to confirm or deny the existence of a "soul", you choose to have faith in your skepticism.

It's okay.

If that's what you believe, there's no reason to avoid saying it.

[orangenblue2]

Christ upon the cross while talking to one of the theives said "today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." I dont know about imediately, but within one day is pretty close...

Joe the Drunk, while talking to one of the hookers said "Bring me a shot every ten minutes until I pass out...and then bring me one every five minutes...". I don't know about you, but that seems like good advice to me...

Seriously, quit telling us what the bible says...I want to know what YOU think about this and more importantly...WHY???

[Bob]

Now I haven't seen this asked (pardon me if it has been) but do only humans
have a soul? Or do other intelligent animals have a soul? Does a chimp have
a soul? How about a dolphin? If it is true that all dogs go to heaven, doesn't
that imply a dog also has a soul. And if non-humans can have a soul, what
is the cut-off point? Does a mouse have a soul? Does a frog? Does a fish?
Does a clam have a soul? How about an amoeba? And is a soul just
limited to animals? Do trees have souls? How about a carrot? Or even
bacteria? Why is it valid for a human to have a soul and not a bean stalk?
I mean you can't prove a mushroom doesn't have a soul, therefore it
must have a soul too. What becomes of all the lost ant souls when I spray some Raid on my counter top?

I know you are being sarcastic, but there are many folks including myself that think that all living things have a soul. We are the only creation that has the agency to chose between light and darkness, right and wrong. As our souls are created of intellegence and light when when choose to knowingly go against that light we violate the natural laws that govern the universe, and we are living contrary to light that is in us. Some people think that God is out there punishing folks, zappping people left and right, but it is more an issue of folks voilating the fabric of the spiritual beings we are at the core. When we do wrong we are as much violating natural law, as we are God's laws.

[orangenblue2]

Either you dont understand the question or you are avoiding it. Either way, he is asking a valid question.

In an area where there is no knowledge verified by science to confirm or deny the existence of a "soul", you choose to have faith in your skepticism.

It's okay.

If that's what you believe, there's no reason to avoid saying it.

I've put my two cents in...what of it? Let's have a go at this Llama...

[Bob]

Joe the Drunk, while talking to one of the hookers said "Bring me a shot every ten minutes until I pass out...and then bring me one every five minutes...". I don't know about you, but that seems like good advice to me...

Seriously, quit telling us what the bible says...I want to know what YOU think about this and more importantly...WHY???

he asked a question about what was in the bible concerning the subject. So I answered. I want to answer, but it is my wife's bithday -- got to go for now.

[orangenblue2]

he asked a question about what was in the bible concerning the subject. So I answered. I want to answer, but it is my wife's bithday -- got to go for now.

Fair enough. Have a wonderful B-Day with your wife...:peace:

[orangenblue2]

he asked a question about what was in the bible concerning the subject. So I answered. I want to answer, but it is my wife's bithday -- got to go for now.

One last thing Bob. I find it very ironic that Charlie Brown is your avatar. Were you aware that Charles Schulz was a non-believer? More specifically, that he described himself as a "secular humanist"? Not that it matters, but an interesting point nonetheless...(at least to me)...

[epicSocialism4tw]

I CHOOSE to disbelieve in the existence of a soul because of Reason.

Reason is a tricky thing. It seems as though the greatest thinkers in the history of man havent been able to agree that it really has any use. Personally, I have been a skeptic for my entire life so I like to use it. I find it practical within my work and within my general worldview.

But, it isnt reason that you are talking about. You are talking about empirical evidence. The two are not the same. Rationalists and empiricists have been at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum for years. You are talking about two entirely different fields of thought with quite developed philosophies. A quick google will probably help you to understand the difference.

If you claim that you adhere to both rationalism and empiricism together, you claim to be at odds with yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is an inconsistency in your belief system.

So, you choose to believe in the soul because there is no empirical evidence of it. Even if the soul was defined by science to be an association between the limbic system and various parts of the cerebral cortex, it still would exist and none of the spiritual value of it would diminish.

You choose not to believe in anything that we do not have empirical evidence for. I would say that there's not very much for you to believe in, and the next great scientific discovery (if it comes during your lifetime) will destroy every preconceived rationale that you had invented along with your belief. You will have been living a lie and will have been okay with that.

There is no compelling empirical evidence to accept any belief in a soul, duality of man, etc.. As a non-believer, ALL of the available evidence, so far, is on my side.

The fact that there is no empirical evidence may justify that belief for you, but there are plenty of other great philosophical ideas out there with just as much justification by reason and logic that a substance or form of something of a soul in man is reasonable.

Invoking the bible, or god(s), or belief in the soul is unnecessary because the natural, physical, reasonable, reality-based world can be explained, nee' SUPPORTED by observable, testable, verifiable evidence.

For the empiricist, matierialist, naturalist, etc, this is a logical idea. To an idealist it is quite a preposterous notion to believe that man could accomplish evidence of something that may not even display evidence within the bounds of our space-time experience.

Just because you base your entire philosophy on empiricism doesnt mean that its any better than any other person's.

Neuroscientific evidence against the existence of a soul is overwhelming.

You just admitted that science has not given us any evidence to support or deny the existence of the soul, and then you immediately followed it with the statement that Biologists in neuroscience have piled up "overwhelming" evidence.

Which is it?

It sounds like you are confused. ???

What do you believers have to match that??? That's right...faith. That's marvelous, but are we non-believers to accord that "faith" the same respect and gravitas that scientific evidence is accorded. I think not.

You have faith that neuroscience will disprove the existence of the soul. You exhibit faith in all sorts of things everyday that there is no empirical evidence for, and then you insult people who admit that there are things that they dont have empirical evidence for?

That's not very nice. In fact, the word hypocrisy would work to describe that condition. You wouldnt want that label.

I CAN believe in all three of these scenarios. I can come up with evidence for two of them. Quit making a "belief" in all three equally plausible, supportable, and verifiable

Oh man...an epistemologist would eat you alive. Google "epistemology" and you should be able to find out what I mean by that.

[Bob]

One last thing Bob. I find it very ironic that Charlie Brown is your avatar. Were you aware that Charles Schulz was a non-believer? More specifically, that he described himself as a "secular humanist"? Not that it matters, but an interesting point nonetheless...(at least to me)...

Always loved Charlie Brown...wanting to kick that football, so badly and believing that lucy would not pull it away at the last second makes me smile every time. Or when he gets rocks for Halloween, when all the rest of the kids get candy, the unreachable dream of the little red-headed girl, the pathetic Christmas tree he picked out, and the closet-full of identical yellow & black sweaters.

[Bob]

Joe the Drunk, while talking to one of the hookers said "Bring me a shot every ten minutes until I pass out...and then bring me one every five minutes...". I don't know about you, but that seems like good advice to me...

Seriously, quit telling us what the bible says...I want to know what YOU think about this and more importantly...WHY???

What? About the immortality of the soul? I think that I have spoken on the topic a bit. I don’t think we had a beginning any more than God did, I think that the very stuff we are made of is light and intelligence which was organized by God, we were not created out of nothing. Creation by its very definition is the organizing of preexisting matter. Scientists may have some of this right – we are made from some of the same particles that have once been part of the stars.

I have my opinions about lots of things, but I try to understand what those who have talked with God have said on various topics. That is one of the reasons I love what is in the scriptures. Very intelligent people who have severed themselves voluntarily from God have more difficult access to revelation (which is one of the main reasons we are here, to learn to choose darkness over light, and to be able to recognize his voice.) As folks make choices to listen to Deity more consistently -- over time the experiences they have change from “feelings and impressions” which is the starting point, to something that is deeper and more evidence based. If people were willing to walk just a little further… and no, it is not an issue of placebo effect, or self-fulfilling prophecies, I want you to know that. I just can’t give folks my convictions which stem from the experiences that I have had. Evidence of spiritual truths cannot come to folks without some degree of humility and hope of something more -- because of the natural laws that govern spiritual progression that God himself has to respect.

It is a very interesting study looking at examples of those who in holy books wanted physical evidence of spiritual truths. You may tell me that these examples were made up to oppress, and scare folks into blind belief. But we all can choose (thank goodness) what path we need to follow for greater happiness (at least in this country.) I do think that there are two languages being spoken one by those that have seen spiritual evidence (or at least hold out that possibility) and another language of those that will not believe until evidence is FIRST given. I can’t think of many examples when signs were given first to folks. If God were to do this, it would be a form of spiritual infanticide. “Proof” given without some faith first rarely changes a person. I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVIDENCE WILL NEVER COME, it will. But think of the examples when there was a miracle first (when folks had little faith.) Five thousand were fed, but many after that miracle wanted to make Christ a king, not because of the miracle, or to change their life -- but because they wanted a free lunch. There are others, but out of respect I think you can look for some examples of your own, if you want to take the time.

Going back to the salt analogy – to know how it tastes, you just have to taste it. Without a reference point to build on we may be speaking a different language. I do think many have become smaller than what was intended as they limit their experience in mortality to what a person can feel in the body, and see with eyes, and reason-out with limited intellectual capacity. I think we are selling ourselves short, as we are children of God, who have the right to access communication with the source of truth. We can explain away every vision, every miracle that has ever occurred – even if we have seen those things ourselves -- if we do not make a change as a result of those experiences. It is not in marvelous manifestations that we are established in truth. If Saul who saw Christ chose another path than he did after seeing that vision he would have eventually been made to believe to that what he had seen was a delusion. It is impossible to hold onto revelation and to be deliberately disobedient at the same time – I am not sure why, but that is a true statement – I think it is another example of natural law.

This is what I believe.

[orangenblue2]

Reason is a tricky thing. It seems as though the greatest thinkers in the history of man havent been able to agree that it really has any use.

Right , no use at all. If you insist on making crap up, give us the quotes. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Personally, I have been a skeptic for my entire life so I like to use it. I find it practical within my work and within my general worldview.

Skeptical about what? Which laundry detergent can get out that nasty grass stain?

But, it isnt reason that you are talking about. You are talking about empirical evidence. The two are not the same. Rationalists and empiricists have been at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum for years. You are talking about two entirely different fields of thought with quite developed philosophies. A quick google will probably help you to understand the difference.

If you claim that you adhere to both rationalism and empiricism together, you claim to be at odds with yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is an inconsistency in your belief system.

Thanks, but maybe it would help you and the others here if I supplied the definitions of what I believe. First off, I define Rationalism to be simply: a system of opinions deduced from reason, as opposed to any supernatural revalation. I further define Empiricism as: a philisophical term meaning knowledge gained through experience. I see no reason why the two terms don't work together. You may try and muddy the picture by playing semantics, but we both know, or you should, that you are trying to pull the wool over some of our reader's eyes. Nice try. Many leading minds have subscribed to Rationalism and Empiricism at the same time, and you know it. In fact, Science overwhelmingly supports Realism today, not because of its objective embrace of "reality"; but because there are so few things that our natural laws can't account for. Beat your head against the door all you want, but you know I'm right. Just like dominoes falling, the big questions that have vexed humans for centuries, have been toppled. Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Meteorology, and Physiology have laid waste to your puny god and the many who have sought to profit from people's ignorance over time. Instead of that old chestnut, "God did it", we humans have solved immeasurable problems and "mysteries" by using a combination of Rationalism and Empiricism. Philosophy is great, but it doesn't answer any questions. If you, Llama, are content to while away the hours on philosophical questions and verbal semantics, go ahead. The rest of the world's best and brightest will continue to forge ahead, knocking down barriers, solving riddles, and enlightening mankind...for mankind's benefit. Not for the glory of some imaginary sky-deity who may or may not be too busy to listen.

So, you choose to believe in the soul because there is no empirical evidence of it. Even if the soul was defined by science to be an association between the limbic system and various parts of the cerebral cortex, it still would exist and none of the spiritual value of it would diminish.

You choose not to believe in anything that we do not have empirical evidence for. I would say that there's not very much for you to believe in, and the next great scientific discovery (if it comes during your lifetime) will destroy every preconceived rationale that you had invented along with your belief. You will have been living a lie and will have been okay with that.

Your definition of the "soul" as an "association between the limbic system and various parts of the cerebral cortex" seems to be severely lacking in spirituality of any kind. Am I to assume that you are now a confirmed Empiricist? Or are you playing the "catch-up" game that all apologists have played by trying to fit your "religion" to the newest evidence. Sooner or later, the sheep will catch on. Obviously not in my lifetime, but it will happen. As for your last crack, I'd be more than happy to change my default position on anything...provided that "anything" is observable, testable, repeatable, etc.. The difference between you and I, is that I'm open to any and all new ideas and concepts. I don't blindly follow where a "good book" says I should go. I don't repeat the "apologist" line ad nauseum like yourself. I truly believe that you are an intelligent guy, but you are afraid. Let it go , man. The water is warm over here...



The fact that there is no empirical evidence may justify that belief for you, but there are plenty of other great philosophical ideas out there with just as much justification by reason and logic that a substance or form of something of a soul in man is reasonable.

Prove it. Make me believe...



For the empiricist, matierialist, naturalist, etc, this is a logical idea. To an idealist it is quite a preposterous notion to believe that man could accomplish evidence of something that may not even display evidence within the bounds of our space-time experience.

I'm only interested in evidence of my/our collective space-time experience. What good is a disembodied deity that concerns itself with crap outside of our collective space-time experience. Just what we need, an overgrown infant who, even though he could by thinking it, chooses not to change his own crappy diaper...because he doesn't care...

Just because you base your entire philosophy on empiricism doesnt mean that its any better than any other person's.

I'm not even sure I have an entire philosophy. I don't claim that its "better", only that its more real, and better for humankind. Your pseudo-intellectualism is a front. I'm convinced of it. Come over to the dark side. There are millions of us, and we're gaining more everyday.



You just admitted that science has not given us any evidence to support or deny the existence of the soul, and then you immediately followed it with the statement that Biologists in neuroscience have piled up "overwhelming" evidence.

Which is it?

Its called "reading comprehension", Slick. Maybe you should google that. It starts with the letter "r". For the rest of the concerned readers, I stated that science can't disprove the existence of the "soul". All available neuroscientific evidence points to there being no soul. Spin that however you want...

It sounds like you are confused. ???

It appears you have problems reading...



You have faith that neuroscience will disprove the existence of the soul. You exhibit faith in all sorts of things everyday that there is no empirical evidence for, and then you insult people who admit that there are things that they dont have empirical evidence for?

That's not very nice. In fact, the word hypocrisy would work to describe that condition. You wouldnt want that label.

I'm open to anything. I won't take your or anybody else's word for it. I'm certainly not going to put stock in any "holy book" put out by men with ulterior motives. As for labels, I could care less. What you see is what you get.



Oh man...an epistemologist would eat you alive. Google "epistemology" and you should be able to find out what I mean by that.


Your bark is way worse than your bite... You're about as worrisome as a cloudy day. Google "Eat Me", you may have to ask a non-believing friend what I mean by that...

[Atlas]

What do you believe of the beginning of life on the planet earth?

Hey what happened to the Diggler avatar?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Right , no use at all. If you insist on making crap up, give us the quotes. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

I never said I didnt have any use for it, in fact I said that I rather liked it. If you dont like what I say, go check it out. See if I know what I'm talking about. I'm too busy watching Conan pull the Walker Texas Ranger Lever to do your research. I think you'll be surprised.


Thanks, but maybe it would help you and the others here if I supplied the definitions of what I believe.

How about using standard definitions. The reason they are used in academia is to limit misunderstandings in situations like this.

First off, I define Rationalism to be simply: a system of opinions deduced from reason, as opposed to any supernatural revalation.

Reason is not a justification in itself, it helps to justify a position. The thing itself (ding an sich) is called a noumenon. This definition was set by Kant, and has been used as a definition in academia since. Your perception of the noumenon (emotive impressions, contrasts with past experience, scientific data, rational deductions from it, etc) creates an impression called a phenomenon. This is where things get pretty tricky. Descartes and others really jacked things up. Wait till you read Leibnitz. And Descartes was a rationalist, by the way. I would recommend checking him out. Some people believe that it is impossible to know any real thing about the ding an sich. There are many popular philosophers with rational arguments that still hold up today who claim it to be an absurdity to pretend to know any real thing about the noumenon as it truly is. See Liebnitz.

.

I further define Empiricism as: a philisophical term meaning knowledge gained through experience.

That looks an awful lot like a dictionary definition. It's a good place to start.



I see no reason why the two terms don't work together.

They can work together, but they are not the same, nor are they mutually inclusive. Let's establish some norms here.

You may try and muddy the picture by playing semantics, but we both know, or you should, that you are trying to pull the wool over some of our reader's eyes. Nice try.

If by "wool" you mean "basic philosphical principles", you are right. You have not explored your philosophy, and that's okay. It is philosophy that we are discussing here. It's not "lets weigh everything against an empiricism and/or rationalism". If you would like to debate the merits of your philosophy, take center stage and wow us with your wisdom. Just remember that there are other equally valid RATIONAL (by the definition of the word rational, not your opinion of what is or isnt "rational", which you actually mean is or isnt true) philosophies that you will be debating.

Many leading minds have subscribed to Rationalism and Empiricism at the same time, and you know it.

There are also brilliant idealists. What of it? There are also brilliant idealist/rationalists. The world is a veritable myriad of differing philosophies and there are brilliant minds of each.

In fact, Science overwhelmingly supports Realism today, not because of its objective embrace of "reality"; but because there are so few things that our natural laws can't account for.

What would you call a medical doctor?

Beat your head against the door all you want, but you know I'm right. Just like dominoes falling, the big questions that have vexed humans for centuries, have been toppled.

Here's a basic one. Now, if this question has been "toppled", there certainly must be universal agreement on it by all of the top intellectuals in the world, no?

What is the universal meaning of life?

Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Meteorology, and Physiology have laid waste to your puny god and the many who have sought to profit from people's ignorance over time.

That's not a very wise statement, and one that shows that you are underinformed on the issue.

Instead of that old chestnut, "God did it", we humans have solved immeasurable problems and "mysteries" by using a combination of Rationalism and Empiricism.

God still did it. The fact that we understand a system doesnt negate the entirety of the problem. You are looking at the small picture. Think much larger.

Philosophy is great, but it doesn't answer any questions.
Sure it does. It spawned the mathematics that we rely on to make generalizations of data. Everyone is a philosopher. You have yours, I have mine. We both have our reasons.

If you, Llama, are content to while away the hours on philosophical questions and verbal semantics, go ahead. The rest of the world's best and brightest will continue to forge ahead, knocking down barriers, solving riddles, and enlightening mankind...for mankind's benefit. Not for the glory of some imaginary sky-deity who may or may not be too busy to listen.

I am plenty content with my contributions to the world in many ways. I am plenty content with my God. I find the reasons to be perfect. Pristine. Of diamond clarity and strength.

Maybe you are young and hotheaded, I dont know, but the sooner you learn that the greatest minds ever to walk the planet understood that we dont really know very much, the better. I think that that would be a good place to start.

Your definition of the "soul" as an "association between the limbic system and various parts of the cerebral cortex" seems to be severely lacking in spirituality of any kind. Am I to assume that you are now a confirmed Empiricist?

I am a naturalist among other things. If you would like to know how I resolve some of the issues that naturalists face when approaching tough questions, I would be happy to share.

Or are you playing the "catch-up" game that all apologists have played by trying to fit your "religion" to the newest evidence.

One of the great attributes of the Christian philosophy is that over time it carefully weighs and accepts legitimate truths. Never has one truth altered the core of the body of its general philosophy.

As for your last crack, I'd be more than happy to change my default position on anything...provided that "anything" is observable, testable, repeatable, etc..

The difference between you and I, is that I'm open to any and all new ideas and concepts.

Not true at all. You have proved here that you are demonstratively objectionable to anything having to do with anything "supernatural". You are ardently closed minded on the subject by your own definition.

I don't repeat the "apologist" line ad nauseum like yourself. I truly believe that you are an intelligent guy, but you are afraid. Let it go , man. The water is warm over here...

I have been where you are. I like where I am now much better, thanks.


I'm only interested in evidence of my/our collective space-time experience. What good is a disembodied deity that concerns itself with crap outside of our collective space-time experience. Just what we need, an overgrown infant who, even though he could by thinking it, chooses not to change his own crappy diaper...because he doesn't care...

That is not my understanding of God at all.


I'm not even sure I have an entire philosophy.

Well, most people dont really know what they believe when you get down to brass tacks, so you arent alone. Maybe this thread will help you to know what it is you do and do not believe.

I don't claim that its "better", only that its more real, and better for humankind.

Now that's a difficult problem for another thread.


Its called "reading comprehension", Slick. Maybe you should google that. It starts with the letter "r". For the rest of the concerned readers, I stated that science can't disprove the existence of the "soul". All available neuroscientific evidence points to there being no soul. Spin that however you want...

You offered two your belief as two opposing positions concerning the same subject. On one hand you said that there wasnt evidence against the existence of the soul, and on the other hand you said that there was overwhelming evidence against the existence of the soul.

It's just an observation made on a thing that you said. I didnt say it.

[alkemical]

Which brings me back to my point on the Brawny Paper Towel Man. The point I'm trying to make is that, like the soul, there is no scientific evidence to support its existence. Now, based on your reasoning, my lack of belief in Brawny is no more valid than if one were to believe he did exist. That's where I have a problem with you reasoning. I will say that one cannot CONCLUSIVELY say the soul does not exist, nor can I say the Brawny Paper Towel Man conclusively does not exist. So, I do leave the door open for evidence to sway my opinion. I think where we disagree is you think one is just as reasonable as the other, when its clear that we can make judgments based on probability that tip the scales one way or another. The probability that the soul exists is not very good, and no more likely than the existence of Brawny. Probability, of course, improves the more evidence one can provide, but since zero evidence exists in either case, that means the existence is unlikely, though technically it can't be ruled out. That I will grant. But it isn't a 50-50 deal.



When it comes to the issue of evidence if there is a soul - there is no "conclusive proof" either way to say if one exists, or does not exist. There for the answer is not 50/50 - because there is no truth to either answer. That's where you keep missing it..... No scientist has come out and said: "The probablity of a soul not existing, is scientifically proven at a rate of..... 66.6% ;)

Sorry bud, it doesn't work that way - so in this instance - the answer isn't: "True or False" - it's merley subjective since there is no proof. So in your reality - there is no soul. You selected that reality because there is no proof to contradict it. That is belief in it's most pure form.

~C.S.

[BroncoInferno]

Either you dont understand the question or you are avoiding it. Either way, he is asking a valid question.

In an area where there is no knowledge verified by science to confirm or deny the existence of a "soul", you choose to have faith in your skepticism.

It's okay.

If that's what you believe, there's no reason to avoid saying it.

I understand the question, you just wish to put equal relevancy in terms of the logic of faith versus objective reasoning, when none exists. As has been stated, there is an equal amount of proof to suggest that there are invisible marathon monkeys racing around Saturn's rings as there is to prove the existence of the soul---zero. While neither can be conclusively proven false, it would be absurd to say that faith that they do is on a 50-50 logical plain with a skeptical view that requires observable evidence in support of that view. Skepticism does not require faith, it requires evidence. orangeblue2 example above sums up the point rather nicely. But, if it makes you feel better to delude yourself into thinking that your faith has some logical basis, have at it.

[BroncoInferno]

Christ upon the cross while talking to one of the theives said "today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." I dont know about imediately, but within one day is pretty close...

Ah, but it doesn't say "today your soul shalt be with me in paradise"...perhaps it can be inferred, but perhaps not. Other parts of the Bible seem to suggest that the promise of paradise is that at rapture the bodies of believers will be revived and given eternal life.

[alkemical]

Good conversation going here...I can't speak for others but I'll answer your question thusly:

I CHOOSE to disbelieve in the existence of a soul because of Reason. There is no compelling empirical evidence to accept any belief in a soul, duality of man, etc.. As a non-believer, ALL of the available evidence, so far, is on my side. Invoking the bible, or god(s), or belief in the soul is unnecessary because the natural, physical, reasonable, reality-based world can be explained, nee' SUPPORTED by observable, testable, verifiable evidence. That being said, science does not completely prove that there is no soul, but who cares? Neuroscientific evidence against the existence of a soul is overwhelming. What do you believers have to match that??? That's right...faith. That's marvelous, but are we non-believers to accord that "faith" the same respect and gravitas that scientific evidence is accorded. I think not.

As for you, Claviculasolomonis, your argument that neither side of this question is "provable"; exactly what can YOU believe this "proof" involves? Another of your favorite arguments centers around the word "belief" or "believe" and it's meaning. I'll try to address that here:

If I have a ticket to Vegas that says I'll hop on a plane at 6:30 AM, I have a "belief" that I'll reach Las Vegas at 3:30 PM. I "believe" this because I've: A) been there before, B) read and saw TV and movies that depict this place, C) known lots and lots of people who have been there themselves, D) these people's stories about their trips haven't been inconsistent with any known facts or evidence that I'm aware of.

If I'm going to China, or Russia, or any other place I've not had the opportunity to visit, I could read, surf the net, read books, etc. to find the information about said country's location, customs, size, population, ad infinitum. I can look at a map or a globe and satisfy myself that such a place exists. I can even look up airline or cruise ship info telling me what time I can expect to arrive and depart. Hell, I can even line up a few things to see and do once I get there. On to the next item:

If I'm told that at some unspecified time in the future, I shall leave my physical body on earth and travel by my "soul" to some unknown place where I shall spend "eternity" in blissful happiness...am I to give this scenario equal weight to the first two? Of course not. How do I get there? Where exactly is this place? Do I know of anyone who has made the trip and returned?

I CAN believe in all three of these scenarios. I can come up with evidence for two of them. Quit making a "belief" in all three equally plausible, supportable, and verifiable...


Well good, i'm glad you recognize you choose to not believe in a soul because of reason, the same way i choose to believe in a soul because of reason (on my spiritually charged days, on my non-believer days not so much). As far as neuroscience, quantum mechanical models of the brain, psychologists - etc - still do not understand consciousness - therefore - they each have said they have no CONCLUSIVE PROOF of what would constitute a soul. Therefore you are CHOOSING to believe a certain way - but only because your POV cannot be disproved. End of story, plain and simple. Remember - i'm not talking any specific religion - just the plain simple "western" concept of a soul - not my own belief of what a soul is either (which is vastly different). At no time did i bring up the bible, etc - You just interjected that into *my* discussion (just remember that). So really, back to the original point - with no conclusive proof either way (for/against) - you CHOOSE to BELIEVE based on nothing more than faith that your POV cannot be disproven. Plain and simple psycology of belief man - then you rationalize it and justify it like any believer by expanding and dilluting the topic by bringing up topics or items i never discussed in this discussion (life after death, etc).

[alkemical]

Now I haven't seen this asked (pardon me if it has been) but do only humans
have a soul? Or do other intelligent animals have a soul? Does a chimp have
a soul? How about a dolphin? If it is true that all dogs go to heaven, doesn't
that imply a dog also has a soul. And if non-humans can have a soul, what
is the cut-off point? Does a mouse have a soul? Does a frog? Does a fish?
Does a clam have a soul? How about an amoeba? And is a soul just
limited to animals? Do trees have souls? How about a carrot? Or even
bacteria? Why is it valid for a human to have a soul and not a bean stalk?
I mean you can't prove a mushroom doesn't have a soul, therefore it
must have a soul too. What becomes of all the lost ant souls when I spray some Raid on my counter top?


How do i know?

I know when i was studying wiccan & hassidisim - everything has a soul - anything that's living is made up of the divine spark of god(ess), the essense - But that's their answer. I just don't have one.

I also heard a guy on the radio tell me that Jesus was actually a mushroom. If you eat that mushroom, you supposidly go on a trip that has a spritual vibe to it.

The shamans say if you eat a mushroom/plant/etc - you absorb it's soul and share the world from it's POV.


Maybe,just maybe - right before harvest - you can hear all the vegtables cry out for god to rapture them before judgement day.... ;)

[alkemical]

*Oh and for the record since it's such a burdsome issue that keeps coming up -

To be totally honest with everyone here - I really don't believe in ANYTHING beyond it's use...... Belief is a tool and when used correctly can be a fun game to change the way the world works for you. change your words, change your demeanor, change yourself - and see how the interactions with the world is different.

Change the media you ingest for 3 months to something completley opposite and see how different you view the world from that set of eyes. I know it's frustrating to you all - but i really do play with "reality tunnels". But what it boils down to, is really using the imagination to it's full and highest potential.

[fontaine]

Indeed - God is a creature of man. God acts and is as we wish God to be.


Do you have proof of this?


I don't believe it arrogant. I consider belief in God to be something akin to a drug addiction (insert obligatory "opiate of the masses" comment here). True, a smoker "needs" her nicotine - it has great value to her. However, once the costs of her needs are taken into account, the value goes negative.

Interesting. So you can create a belief of God contrary to the Bible. You're creating your own version of God. Pretty ironic. Again what proof do you have of this?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I understand the question, you just wish to put equal relevancy in terms of the logic of faith versus objective reasoning, when none exists.

That is not a statement of truth, it is your opinion.

As has been stated, there is an equal amount of proof to suggest that there are invisible marathon monkeys racing around Saturn's rings as there is to prove the existence of the soul---zero.

I dont understand the need to be insulting. Every materialist on this thread, including the author of the book in question, has made it their point not to debate but to make their stand on a mass of insults. That is a clear indicator that the point here is not to discuss the issues, but to issue high-fives to one another.

While neither can be conclusively proven false, it would be absurd to say that faith that they do is on a 50-50 logical plain with a skeptical view that requires observable evidence in support of that view. Skepticism does not require faith, it requires evidence

The scientific method is your god. Your relationship with your god is driven by faith in man, who according to your own popular theory is not much more than a monkey.

[BroncoInferno]

When it comes to the issue of evidence if there is a soul - there is no "conclusive proof" either way to say if one exists, or does not exist. There for the answer is not 50/50 - because there is no truth to either answer. That's where you keep missing it..... No scientist has come out and said: "The probablity of a soul not existing, is scientifically proven at a rate of..... 66.6% ;)

Sorry bud, it doesn't work that way - so in this instance - the answer isn't: "True or False" - it's merley subjective since there is no proof. So in your reality - there is no soul. You selected that reality because there is no proof to contradict it. That is belief in it's most pure form.

~C.S.


We are just going in circles now. I will conclude thusly:

The logical extension of your argument gives equal footing to the idea that Brawny the Paper Towel Man exists versus the evidence based conclusion that he probably does not, because it can not be proven either way. If that type of reasoning works for you, so be it.

[fontaine]

Prove it. Make me believe...



Why?

I find this aspect of non faith to be very interesting. Why is it that I or angryllama have to prove anything?

I think this is what the heart of the problem is. If I want to become a doctor I don't ask my local Doc to prove it to me so that I can believe in modern medicine. The logical path would be to attend graduate studies, do my internship, study medicine and practice it.

I find the same thought process applies to faith and belief in a religion.

Because you've got preset notions and conceptions about God etc how can anyone change your mind?

The most likely person to do that is you yourself.

[fontaine]

I dont understand the need to be insulting. Every materialist on this thread, including the author of the book in question, has made it their point not to debate but to make their stand on a mass of insults. That is a clear indicator that the point here is not to discuss the issues, but to issue high-fives to one another.


That's the only problem I have with the book/author in this thread. Why base your belief system or lack of one based around your contempt of practitioners of another religion.

It's like a spoiled child looking for any kind of attention by purposefully breaking rules.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That's the only problem I have with the book/author in this thread. Why base your belief system or lack of one based around your contempt of practitioners of another religion.

That's one of the reasons I think that reactionary philosophies like modern secular humanism will eventually fade into history. They present only apology against this or that.

It's telling that the main idea being debated is rooted in atheism. The word atheism itself is a prefix a- stuck to the word theism. The purveyors of atheism have no problem relying on theism to base their entire functional philosophy on. They should really look to change the name.

[alkemical]

We are just going in circles now. I will conclude thusly:

The logical extension of your argument gives equal footing to the idea that Brawny the Paper Towel Man exists versus the evidence based conclusion that he probably does not, because it can not be proven either way. If that type of reasoning works for you, so be it.

The brawney paper towel man is a failed argument, that's why you keep thinking it's circular. You would have to use an example, that has no provable conclusion as to it's existence - and not some marketing image created to sell paper towels - not to mention there is a brawney paper towel man (he's on TV) - just as there was a marlboro man. That's why that example isn't working. It would be like saying/stating about life in the universe or something. There's no proof to disprove or prove there is other life in the universe - therefore the possiblity has to exist that both are correct - or - (C) All of the above (as example).

[fontaine]

That's one of the reasons I think that reactionary philosophies like modern secular humanism will eventually fade into history. They present only apology against this or that.

It's telling that the main idea being debated is rooted in atheism. The word atheism itself is a prefix a- stuck to the word theism. The purveyors of atheism have no problem relying on theism to base their entire functional philosophy on. They should really look to change the name.

I have no problems with Atheism. It's just when it's used to slam something that was written hundreds of years ago that I find baffling. I mean in the OT it was said that you shouldn't eat anything that crawls on the sea bed. Does that mean all Jews/Christians should boycott Red Lobster?

Some of this stuff is based on common sense, and there's a severe shortage of that when either side uses the Bible literally to prove/disprove it.

[fontaine]

The brawney paper towel man is a failed argument, that's why you keep thinking it's circular. You would have to use an example, that has no provable conclusion as to it's existence - and not some marketing image created to sell paper towels - not to mention there is a brawney paper towel man (he's on TV) - just as there was a marlboro man. That's why that example isn't working. It would be like saying/stating about life in the universe or something. There's no proof to disprove or prove there is other life in the universe - therefore the possiblity has to exist that both are correct - or - (C) All of the above (as example).

The bubble theory provides for multiple universes where many different if not inifite possibilities exist so it's not as if the burden of proof resides on either side. I agree that a lot of it comes down to personal choice of what to believe and what not to.

Personal preference wrapped around limited, immediate perception pretty much defines our race.

[alkemical]

Why?

I find this aspect of non faith to be very interesting. Why is it that I or angryllama have to prove anything?

I think this is what the heart of the problem is. If I want to become a doctor I don't ask my local Doc to prove it to me so that I can believe in modern medicine. The logical path would be to attend graduate studies, do my internship, study medicine and practice it.

I find the same thought process applies to faith and belief in a religion.

Because you've got preset notions and conceptions about God etc how can anyone change your mind?

The most likely person to do that is you yourself.


It's one of the principle reasons i love spirtuality and and the like. When i select a "magical reality" - that is full of coincidences and mystery - i have some of the most fun and best enlightenment come out of it. It quite possibly can be done another way, but i enjoy it.

I don't understand why people want to be convinced of anything. I'm not trying to sell anyone the idea of there being a soul - just that it's possible. Where it comes from, what it is, where it goes - i don't know - and to be honest - it's not important to me - it has no wieghted value of importance to me.

Sometimes though, the more and more i break down how people operate, the more i realize how backwards everything is.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I mean in the OT it was said that you shouldn't eat anything that crawls on the sea bed. Does that mean all Jews/Christians should boycott Red Lobster?

Much of the Levitical law is practical in nature for it's time period, and was understood as pragmatic by the Priests and parishoners that practiced it.

Some of this stuff is based on common sense, and there's a severe shortage of that when either side uses the Bible literally to prove/disprove it.

There's not alot of common sense going around these days.

[BroncoInferno]

I dont understand the need to be insulting. Every materialist on this thread, including the author of the book in question, has made it their point not to debate but to make their stand on a mass of insults. That is a clear indicator that the point here is not to discuss the issues, but to issue high-fives to one another.

The subject of this debate is whether or not soul belief is as reasonable as evidence based skepticism in terms of its logical foundation. The argument that Josh has offered leads to the type of absurd scenario I listed above. Insult was not the attempt, but rather a demonstration of the logical fallacy of the argument. If you feel insulted, perhaps this is not a debate you should particiapte in.

The scientific method is your god. Your relationship with your god is driven by faith in man, who according to your own popular theory is not much more than a monkey.

The scientific method is a tool, a tool that encourages new understanding and revision of viewpoints when evidence warrents such. Blind faith promotes neither.

[fontaine]

It's one of the principle reasons i love spirtuality and and the like. When i select a "magical reality" - that is full of coincidences and mystery - i have some of the most fun and best enlightenment come out of it. It quite possibly can be done another way, but i enjoy it.

I don't understand why people want to be convinced of anything. I'm not trying to sell anyone the idea of there being a soul - just that it's possible. Where it comes from, what it is, where it goes - i don't know - and to be honest - it's not important to me - it has no wieghted value of importance to me.

Sometimes though, the more and more i break down how people operate, the more i realize how backwards everything is.

We live in an age where if it can't be analysed, broken down, dissected and regurgitated in simple form on wiki then it's not worth knowing!

:rofl:

We demand instant satisfaction with no side effects with the option of going large.

I happen to think there's a pretty good reason why we can/cannot prove God exists. People wouldn't be able to handle it.

It wouldn't result in global peace, end of poverty or anything, but chaos, confusion and mass hysteria with Fox giving us hourly updates.

[W*GS]

Do you have proof of this?

The concept of a God, or gods, or spirits, or whatever, is common across all cultures - usually invoked to explain something. The Christian God is just another one of these cultural myths, no different than the Greeks' creation of Zeus.

Interesting. So you can create a belief of God contrary to the Bible.

Which Bible are you talking about? The one with or without various chapters? The one decreed to be "The Bible" in 350 AD or thereabouts, or one of the previous iterations?

I'm not creating a belief of God - I'm merely pointing out that Bob's assertion that I shouldn't dismiss God because some find solace in a belief in God isn't a strong point in favor of a belief in God. Addicts find solace in the substance to which they are addicted; does that mean that the substance itself is Good? Not at all.

It's not "God created Man in His own image", it's "Man created God in his own image"...

[fontaine]

Blind faith promotes neither.

Who said anything about "blind" faith?

[BroncoInferno]

Who said anything about "blind" faith?

Belief in something for which no evidence exists is "blind faith." If you have some compeling evidence that strongly indicates the existence of the soul, feel free to enlighten me.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The scientific method is a tool, a tool that encourages new understanding and revision of viewpoints when evidence warrents such. Blind faith promotes neither.

The scientific method is a creation of man, who by evolutionary accounts is not very much different than a monkey. Take that into perspective when considering what faith you have in a tool that man creates. You have faith in the ability of that tool, even though it has given you relatively very few results over the many years that it has been in use. Compare the number of scientific LAWS to the number of scientific THEORIES. A law is accepted as a truth, a theory is a possibility based on deduction.

The scientific method is subject to the same inconsistencies and biases that man presents in all of his other endeavors. The method is an accepted TGM, and it is abused daily. Oil companies and environmental activists hire scientists to prove what they want proved. Research is driven by grants. It is a practical pursuit. Companies are the main engine for research.

"Blind" faith doesnt exist. It is based on rationalizations of observations that have proved to be existentially repeatable.

[alkemical]

The subject of this debate is whether or not soul belief is as reasonable as evidence based skepticism in terms of its logical foundation. The argument that Josh has offered leads to the type of absurd scenario I listed above. Insult was not the attempt, but rather a demonstration of the logical fallacy of the argument. If you feel insulted, perhaps this is not a debate you should particiapte in.



The scientific method is a tool, a tool that encourages new understanding and revision of viewpoints when evidence warrents such. Blind faith promotes neither.

It's only a fallicy because you used something that was infact, false. Instead of being honest and using an example of something that isn't known or unproven - you created a test case that was false to begin with. use something like - "is there live in the universe" or "why does one sock get eaten by the dryer" - or something of equal criteria and you are fine.

But change it to something that is false to tilt the discussion in a way that's not valid - invalidates the discussion by using false data.

[alkemical]

Belief in something for which no evidence exists is "blind faith." If you have some compeling evidence that strongly indicates the existence of the soul, feel free to enlighten me.

Yeah you mean like there's no proof to discount a soul, yet you use faith to believe there isn't one.

[BroncoInferno]

The scientific method is a creation of man, who by evolutionary accounts is not very much different than a monkey. Take that into perspective when considering what faith you have in a tool that man creates. You have faith in the ability of that tool, even though it has given you relatively very few results over the many years that it has been in use. Compare the number of scientific LAWS to the number of scientific THEORIES. A law is accepted as a truth, a theory is a possibility based on deduction.

Nothing but utter bull****.

"Blind" faith doesnt exist. It is based on rationalizations of observations that have proved to be existentially repeatable.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, and certainly no evidence that is "repeatable"...only desperate grasping at straws by folks who refuse to come to terms with the reality that this life is probably all we are going to get.

[fontaine]

The concept of a God, or gods, or spirits, or whatever, is common across all cultures - usually invoked to explain something. The Christian God is just another one of these cultural myths, no different than the Greeks' creation of Zeus.



That's weak and a cop out. You said:

Indeed - God is a creature of man. God acts and is as we wish God to be.

So again what proof of that do you have. You replied with an opinion. An opinion that's created your version of God. So let me ask you again. What proof do you have that man created God?


I'm not creating a belief of God - I'm merely pointing out that Bob's assertion that I shouldn't dismiss God because some find solace in a belief in God isn't a strong point in favor of a belief in God. Addicts find solace in the substance to which they are addicted; does that mean that the substance itself is Good? Not at all.
It's not "God created Man in His own image", it's "Man created God in his own image"...


Again that's weak and a cop out. I said that you have a belief of God. That belief happens to be that man created God - without any proof to back it up.

So how's that different from the "believers that you like to prod from time to time?"

[fontaine]

Belief in something for which no evidence exists is "blind faith." If you have some compeling evidence that strongly indicates the existence of the soul, feel free to enlighten me.

I do have compelling evidence but I feel no need to prove it to you. Read my post number 131.

[BroncoInferno]

Yeah you mean like there's no proof to discount a soul, yet you use faith to believe there isn't one.

Yeah, you're right, I also use faith in determining that there aren't invisible monkeys racing each other around Saturns rings, even though there is no proof that there aren't. That is just an air tight argument you've got there Uhh

[BroncoInferno]

I do have compelling evidence but I feel no need to prove it to you. Read my post number 131.

Because the evidence is probably not compelling at all...just you choosing to jump to conclusions in order to get the result you prefer rather than honestly assessing where the evidence takes you.

But I could be wrong...please, I would like to hear the evidence.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Nothing but utter bull****.

Not at all. It is a logical extension of your own philosophy.


There is no evidence for the existence of God, and certainly no evidence that is "repeatable"...only desperate grasping at straws by folks who refuse to come to terms with the reality that this life is probably all we are going to get.

Empirical evidence is something that is repeatable. Something that if Joe Schmoe does time and time again, that he gets the same results. If Mr. Schmoe is convinced of the evidence of God, accepts that evidence, changes his life to serve God, and sees the fruit of that change, it verifies the functionality to 'ol Joe of that philosophy.

If you ask someone about how they know about God, they will tell you that it's something that you have to experience with an open mind. That the ends and the means with both be confirmed by the experience.

[alkemical]

The bubble theory provides for multiple universes where many different if not inifite possibilities exist so it's not as if the burden of proof resides on either side. I agree that a lot of it comes down to personal choice of what to believe and what not to.

Personal preference wrapped around limited, immediate perception pretty much defines our race.

Exactly! I don't care whom believes what - but i find it funny how Athiests either want to convert people to athiesm - or just want to get anger out of their system(s) by just picking on people who choose to follow a religion.

As long as people aren't sacrificing people & animals, and intruding on someone's direct family and way of life - WTF cares? Why does an athiests belief in no-god is the only way? Seems to be very similiar to to anyone else's conversion sale.....

Everything is a choice. Sometimes i choose to have a limited world view, other times i like the conspiracy world view, other times i feel like a neo-shaman - other days i just feel like starting trouble.

I guess depending on what day/mood i die, might depend on my afterlife.... ;)

[W*GS]

That's one of the reasons I think that reactionary philosophies like modern secular humanism will eventually fade into history. They present only apology against this or that.

Interesting take. Why? What sort of apologia do atheists offer?

It's telling that the main idea being debated is rooted in atheism. The word atheism itself is a prefix a- stuck to the word theism. The purveyors of atheism have no problem relying on theism to base their entire functional philosophy on. They should really look to change the name.

This is lame.

[fontaine]

Because the evidence is probably not compelling at all...just you choosing to jump to conclusions in order to get the result you prefer rather than honestly assessing where the evidence takes you.

But I could be wrong...please, I would like to hear the evidence.


I was right. Like I said in my post 131, who am I to break down your preconceived notions and bias?

As is highlighted in your post above, you are ALREADY prepared to dismiss my proof without me saying a word. No offense but like Jesus said, pearls before swine. I'm not trying to insult you btw.

Now even if I were to tell you, chances are you would dismiss it readily. Ultimately you've made up your own mind. I'm not trying to change it for you because your belief system (or lack of it) is yours and I've got nothing against that as long as you don't have a problem with mine. And even then, frankly, I could care less.

But in the off chance that you are interested then you would be better served by reading the NT, practicing it through prayer and actions and if you're ready for it faith will come.

[BroncoInferno]

Exactly! I don't care whom believes what - but i find it funny how Athiests either want to convert people to athiesm - or just want to get anger out of their system(s) by just picking on people who choose to follow a religion.

I don't particularly care, I just enjoy debating with people. I do care, though, with belief that causes harm to others who do not share that belief...e.g. flying planes into buildings in order to obtain 72 virgins; ostracizing and denying rights to a segment of the population simply because of their sexual orientation; attempts to force religious beliefs into science classrooms where they have no place ,etc. Otherwise, I could really care less. I just like to argue :)

As long as people aren't sacrificing people & animals, and intruding on someone's direct family and way of life - WTF cares? Why does an athiests belief in no-god is the only way? Seems to be very similiar to to anyone else's conversion sale.....

I agree with this as far as "WTF cares?" I only make exceptions in instances such as I listed above.

[alkemical]

Yeah, you're right, I also use faith in determining that there aren't invisible monkeys racing each other around Saturns rings, even though there is no proof that there aren't. That is just an air tight argument you've got there Uhh

See this is exaclty the communication problem IMO....

Science - has stated that there is no viable proof to prove/disprove a soul - yet you still CHOOSE to believe your POV that there is no soul - because there's no proof to it's existence. Even though, the opposite is very much true as well. Both are viable since they are unprovable by science, since there's no clear understanding of what consiousness IS.

YOUR POV dicates that there is no god, there is nothing divine in this world, thus - your belief system fills in the gap and automatically selects "FALSE" to the answer of "is there a soul" - even though scientists, philosphers, et al - don't KNOW. Now, if people whom are many times over, more educated than you and I - and have had access to test subjects, materials, etc - find no conclusive evidence - one way or the other....

Your choice comes down to your decision to choose that choice, that follows the reality you constructed due to your belief system (athiesm).

This isn't about monkeys on saturn, this isn't some failed commericalized example-

What this boiled down to - really - is that you made a decision based upon your POV of how the world works, even though there is no proof to conclusivly prove one way or the either that something is "true/false". With no proof, you made a decision based upon your understanding of things - even though evidence is inconclusive - therefore - you have used faith to make that decision - instead of being open to either/or. You need an absolute, you need an answer - and it's no different than anyone else on earth who looks for answers to their own questions in life.

It's been fun talking to you - just remember - 'belief' isn't a bad word. We all have belief structures. Some people believe all women are money grubbers, some people believe white people are holding them down, some people believe that they are worthless, etc.

[W*GS]

What proof do you have that man created God?

Like I said, man has created myths to fill in the gaps of his understanding of the universe. Your God is but another one of those myths. Your God is more of an anthropological phenomena than anything else.

[W*GS]

If Mr. Schmoe is convinced of the evidence of God, accepts that evidence, changes his life to serve God, and sees the fruit of that change, it verifies the functionality to 'ol Joe of that philosophy.

What evidence is there for your God, to J.Schmoe (or anyone else)? A list would be nice.

If you ask someone about how they know about God, they will tell you that it's something that you have to experience with an open mind.

Implicitly asserting that only closed minds don't believe in God. Nice.

[alkemical]

I don't particularly care, I just enjoy debating with people. I do care, though, with belief that causes harm to others who do not share that belief...e.g. flying planes into buildings in order to obtain 72 virgins; ostracizing and denying rights to a segment of the population simply because of their sexual orientation; attempts to force religious beliefs into science classrooms where they have no place ,etc. Otherwise, I could really care less. I just like to argue :)



I agree with this as far as "WTF cares?" I only make exceptions in instances such as I listed above.


But that's another issue of man using a system in place to further an agenda, fill a vice (power, etc) - it can take place in religion, gov't, sports teams, etc - it's not limited to JUST religion anymore.

That's another topic though.

[fontaine]

Like I said, man has created myths to fill in the gaps of his understanding of the universe. Your God is but another one of those myths. Your God is more of an anthropological phenomena than anything else.


Predictable.

I called it 10 posts ago.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1580148&postcount=148

[bendog]

http://www.gazette.com/articles/church_21997___article.html/pie_grace.html

[W*GS]

But in the off chance that you are interested then you would be better served by reading the NT, practicing it through prayer and actions and if you're ready for it faith will come.

Why just the NT? What about the Apocrypha too?

And why just the Bible? Why not the Qu'ran? Are not YHWH/Jehovah/Allah the same dude?

[fontaine]

Why just the NT? What about the Apocrypha too?

And why just the Bible? Why not the Qu'ran? Are not YHWH/Jehovah/Allah the same dude?

If you say so.

But then again you don't have any proof of your God do you?

Ha!

You have no proof that man created God yet you're here criticizing others for practicing something that you yourself adhere to!?

What a hypocrite.

[alkemical]

http://www.gazette.com/articles/church_21997___article.html/pie_grace.html

lol

[W*GS]

Predictable.

I called it 10 posts ago.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1580148&postcount=148

Whatever you want.

It's pretty obvious to those of us not suffering from the God delusion that God was created by man to serve a perceived need. Those needs include things like explaining how life came to be, what the requirements for a moral life are, and to explain how babies can die excruciating deaths for no reason. Never mind that there are other explanations (granted, some incomplete) for these things.

[W*GS]

But then again you don't have any proof of your God do you?

Read up on the anthropological examinations of religious belief. It's not my fault that you're ignorant.

You have no proof that man created God yet you're here criticizing others for practicing something that you yourself adhere to!?

I don't believe in God - you do. Big difference, there.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's pretty obvious to those of us not suffering from the God delusion that God was created by man to serve a perceived need. Those needs include things like explaining how life came to be, what the requirements for a moral life are, and to explain how babies can die excruciating deaths for no reason. Never mind that there are other explanations (granted, some incomplete) for these things.

Whatever naturalistic phenomena explain the systems that house the soul or the brain's relation to Lockeian experience do not by their mere being defined oppose a theistic philosophy. In my mind (as in many of the great scientists of our age) it only goes to support the idea that there is a creator, and that that creator has given us the faculties to both understand some of his work and to experience beauty.

Defining the naturalistic nature of the laws of the universe does not undercut their spiritual value. It only enhances them.

So to claim that the ideas of Mendel, Darwin, or Einstein contribute only to the atheistic worldview is a fallacy.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Why just the NT? What about the Apocrypha too?

For a Christian, that answer should be obvious. The Bible's foundation is in the Synoptic Gospels, the Book of John, and Paul's letters. Everything else is in support of those books. The extrabiblical texts were incongruent with the themes that were coherent among those main books. That's why they were dumped, because they didnt stack up logically with the oldest and most trusted sources.

And why just the Bible? Why not the Qu'ran? Are not YHWH/Jehovah/Allah the same dude?


No.

YHWH is who we are dealing with, and the Christians think that his human name is Yeshua. Jesus.

Allah is something else...an amalgum of various middle eastern traditions and gods consolidated by a warlord.

Jehova doesnt exist. It is a name brought about as a misinterpretation of the Hebrew letters for YHWH.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Interesting take. Why?

They only serve to reinforce the philosophy that they react against, and if it doesnt have anything tangible to offer regular people, then it goes by the wayside. Not to mention that popular atheistic philosophies like Secular Humanism are fraught with all sorts of contradictions, absurdities, paradoxes, and atrocities. Atheism is "sexy" in academia now, but once its criticisms reach the mainstream it will be dropped like a bad habit.

What sort of apologia do atheists offer?

Atheism is ruled by people like O'Hair and Dawkins whose entire treatises are built on apology for atheism.

[Bob]

Not at all. It is a logical extension of your own philosophy.




Empirical evidence is something that is repeatable. Something that if Joe Schmoe does time and time again, that he gets the same results. If Mr. Schmoe is convinced of the evidence of God, accepts that evidence, changes his life to serve God, and sees the fruit of that change, it verifies the functionality to 'ol Joe of that philosophy.

If you ask someone about how they know about God, they will tell you that it's something that you have to experience with an open mind. That the ends and the means with both be confirmed by the experience.

I think there is truth to this. Those who do not believe will never see one scrap of the evidence they would need to believe, as they have the order backwards. Why does God put hope, humility, and some small leaps before proof comes? I think it is to protect agency, and for our choices to matter. It is ironic that folks could have evidence, if they were willing to pay the price to have those experinces. I dont think it would be healthy to seek for signs for the mere purpose of seeing the signs though. I also think that there are some experinces that folks have with Diety that should be kept to oneself.

[W*GS]

They only serve to reinforce the philosophy that they react against, and if it doesnt have anything tangible to offer regular people, then it goes by the wayside.

Being opposed to theism makes theism stronger? Interesting idea - but not a realistic one. Humanity has opposed various -isms over time, and many of them have been consigned to the ash heap of history. According to you, these discarded -isms should be stronger because they were opposed - or is that only a "feature" of theism?

Not to mention that popular atheistic philosophies like Secular Humanism are fraught with all sorts of contradictions, absurdities, paradoxes, and atrocities.

Your laundry list is better applied to Christianity.

Atheism is "sexy" in academia now, but once its criticisms reach the mainstream it will be dropped like a bad habit.

As if only academics (those pointy-headed ivory-tower bespectacled scumbags) are atheists.

Atheism is ruled by people like O'Hair and Dawkins whose entire treatises are built on apology for atheism.

Ooooh. Do we get to compare the dredges of atheists with the dredges of theists, and I get to decide who's representative of theists? Can I, please?!?

[W*GS]

Whatever naturalistic phenomena explain the systems that house the soul or the brain's relation to Lockeian experience do not by their mere being defined oppose a theistic philosophy.

However, the gaps in which your God is claimed necessary are dwindling all the time... Compared to the past, those realms of knowledge in which your God used to operate as an explanation are shrinking apace...

In my mind (as in many of the great scientists of our age) it only goes to support the idea that there is a creator, and that that creator has given us the faculties to both understand some of his work and to experience beauty.

ID gets nowhere with me. You deride science when it removes your God as a necessity; at the same time, you desperately twist it to attempt to give your faith some illusion of reason. Which is it?

Defining the naturalistic nature of the laws of the universe does not undercut their spiritual value. It only enhances them.

That's a biased interpretation - you think those laws support your faith. They merely are, and care not what your faith is.

So to claim that the ideas of Mendel, Darwin, or Einstein contribute only to the atheistic worldview is a fallacy.

The fallacy is in thinking you can hijack science to support your faith.

[epicSocialism4tw]

[QUOTE]However, the gaps in which your God is claimed necessary are dwindling all the time... Compared to the past, those realms of knowledge in which your God used to operate as an explanation are shrinking apace...

God is not about the "gaps" where knowledge doesnt exist. This is one of the things that I have been trying to explain in this thread. I must not be doing a good job, because the same issue keeps being repeated. God is about a relationship unique to each individual. Any empirical evidence of the systems and objects of the universe should by nature only enhance the knowledge on the periphery of the philosophy.



ID gets nowhere with me. You deride science when it removes your God as a necessity; at the same time, you desperately twist it to attempt to give your faith some illusion of reason. Which is it?

Science is very useful. I study science and I have worked in science for years. Personally, I am a naturalist. I believe that metaphysical events are not events that would not be unexplainable if science was able to confine them to a closed system and experiment with them there. That includes miracles. That doesnt mean that they arent miracles or events where God came into contact with man. If God wanted to bless man with a miracle, why would he use different laws and systems than the ones that he created to govern the universe?


That's a biased interpretation - you think those laws support your faith. They merely are, and care not what your faith is.

What does that matter if they merely "are"? I think that that is the point I am trying to make, no? They just are. Just like God is what he is, and what he always will be. Science will never be able to disprove the God that created the scientific method and everything else that man props himself up on the understanding of. Logically, it will be impossible to disprove God with the scientific method, only to add to what we already know.


The fallacy is in thinking you can hijack science to support your faith.

I guess that science is only for the closed minded? Lord help us if that's the case because science will die with people like that at the helm.

[TheDave]

Lord help us if that's the case because science will die with people like that at the helm.

Damn it... I managed to skim through 10 pages of some seriously over the top theological crap, and yet somehow i got stuck on this. Now i'm offended

[epicSocialism4tw]

Being opposed to theism makes theism stronger? Interesting idea - but not a realistic one. Humanity has opposed various -isms over time, and many of them have been consigned to the ash heap of history. According to you, these discarded -isms should be stronger because they were opposed - or is that only a "feature" of theism?

Either they grow stronger or die. If they serve no practical purpose for people in the real world, that is. I have seen my faith grow much stronger with the modern advent of popular science. The ideas that have made my faith grow stronger have to do with the biosophistication of man, and the elegance of the universe...particularly the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, atomic theory, and integrated neuroscience among others. None of these in any way can destroy my concept of God, no matter what they uncover. BUT, I can take them wholly into my worldview without conflict. I even enjoy evolutionary theory (oooh).


Your laundry list is better applied to Christianity.

Secular Humanism has not yet been critiqued full on by the academic community. When it does, I have absolutely zero doubt that it will crumble like a good, aged stilton. Unfortnately it will not go down as smooth as we digest it.

As if only academics (those pointy-headed ivory-tower bespectacled scumbags) are atheists.

I didnt say that. I said that its "sexy" in academia to apologize for and entertain atheism. It is a fad.


Ooooh. Do we get to compare the dredges of atheists with the dredges of theists, and I get to decide who's representative of theists? Can I, please?!?

O'Hair may be the most significant atheist of her generation. Dawkins was the purpose of this thread...you had no problem throwing him out there like an authority a couple of days ago.

[W*GS]

God is not about the "gaps" where knowledge doesnt exist. This is one of the things that I have been trying to explain in this thread. I must not be doing a good job, because the same issue keeps being repeated. God is about a relationship unique to each individual.

Perhaps I misspoke - man did not create God in his own image; I create God in my own image. My God is unique to me; your God is unique to you. My God can beat up your God, BTW.

If God wanted to bless man with a miracle, why would he use different laws and systems than the ones that he created to govern the universe?

What's the definition of a miracle if not an event that violates the laws of nature? Feeding a multitude from a single twinkie, for example.

Besides, how would you distinguish a miracle from a standard magic trick?

What does that matter if they merely "are"? I think that that is the point I am trying to make, no? They just are. Just like God is what he is, and what he always will be. Science will never be able to disprove the God that created the scientific method and everything else that man props himself up on the understanding of. Logically, it will be impossible to disprove God with the scientific method, only to add to what we already know.

It isn't on atheists to disprove God - and having the out that you define for yourself what you call "God" means that you can slip out of any attempt to pin you down on a proof of God. For example, calling the sum total of the laws that govern the universe "God" means God exists, right?

I guess that science is only for the closed minded? Lord help us if that's the case because science will die with people like that at the helm.

God has no more place in science than Zeus does. There, I said it - and I think scientists who somehow manage to fit both their reason and their faith into the same brain are actually wishy-washy agnostics-in-hiding. They're more examples of the ability of people to believe in contradictory things simultaneously than they are of the lack of conflict between science and faith. I just wonder why those scientists decide to abandon their reason in favor of their faith.

[W*GS]

Either they grow stronger or die. If they serve no practical purpose for people in the real world, that is.

That well explains the lessening of the infiltration of faith into our lives - as our knowledge grows, and there are fewer and fewer practical uses of faith, it withers. That's why believers have retreated into the lair of faith-as-necessary-for-morality cave...

I have seen my faith grow much stronger with the modern advent of popular science. The ideas that have made my faith grow stronger have to do with the biosophistication of man, and the elegance of the universe...particularly the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, atomic theory, and integrated neuroscience among others.

The human animal isn't particularly sophisticated in many ways, compared to other animals (as an example) or taken as evidence of a design. As for calling the universe "elegant", that's just an aesthetic judgement.

None of these in any way can destroy my concept of God, no matter what they uncover. BUT, I can take them wholly into my worldview without conflict. I even enjoy evolutionary theory (oooh).

Kids seem to get along fine despite believing in Santa Claus, too.

Secular Humanism has not yet been critiqued full on by the academic community. When it does, I have absolutely zero doubt that it will crumble like a good, aged stilton. Unfortnately it will not go down as smooth as we digest it.

What is "secular humanism" anyway? Believer-code for "godless communism" or something?

I didnt say that. I said that its "sexy" in academia to apologize for and entertain atheism. It is a fad.

Atheism-as-fad. Interesting take.

O'Hair may be the most significant atheist of her generation. Dawkins was the purpose of this thread...you had no problem throwing him out there like an authority a couple of days ago.

I'll take O'Hair and Dawkins over Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, Sharpton, Mother Teresa and Fred Phelps put together...

[epicSocialism4tw]

Perhaps I misspoke - man did not create God in his own image; I create God in my own image. My God is unique to me; your God is unique to you. My God can beat up your God, BTW.

Now youre just being silly.


What's the definition of a miracle if not an event that violates the laws of nature? Feeding a multitude from a single twinkie, for example.
Besides, how would you distinguish a miracle from a standard magic trick?

Check out the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It will blow the doors off of whatever it is you think about the science of matter. Just as relativity did years ago. However, I think that Heisenberg and relativity are only hints at just how wacky our universe really is.

It isn't on atheists to disprove God - and having the out that you define for yourself what you call "God" means that you can slip out of any attempt to pin you down on a proof of God. For example, calling the sum total of the laws that govern the universe "God" means God exists, right?

Science has not practically defined any "sum total" of anything. Scientific method only supplys us with bits of systems. If we believe that systems are possibly more complex than systems of simple causality then we should expect a unifying theory to blow the doors off of what we already know if and when it arrives.

Also, if God is indeed God, then why should we expect him to be disproved?

God has no more place in science than Zeus does. There, I said it

You are right in that the scientific method is the backbone of science and there is not another stipulation in the scientific method that says that theinformation gathered must fit into the worldview of a Christian. That's how I would want it.

But to say that there is no room in a naturalistic philosophy for God is simply not true.

and I think scientists who somehow manage to fit both their reason and their faith into the same brain are actually wishy-washy agnostics-in-hiding.

Not at all. Newton must have been a fool. Mendel too.

They're more examples of the ability of people to believe in contradictory things simultaneously than they are of the lack of conflict between science and faith.

Its more of an example of the progression of philosophy and the resolution of conflict through reason. Remember, there is a specific definition of reason.

I just wonder why those scientists decide to abandon their reason in favor of their faith.

Maybe because reason isnt their God? Maybe they dont prop themselves up on a pile of vain glories. Maybe their reason is really in use. Maybe they reason out their faith.

I think that you guys need to take a closer look at what reason is.

[W*GS]

Now youre just being silly.

The interesting thing is that God is something different to every Christian, and is different to the same Christian depending on the point he's trying to make. Some Christians think God is perfectly merciful, and Hell doesn't even exist; some think he's a vengeful destructor, who will punish nearly everyone with unspeakable horror and pain; others think he's deeply and personally concerned with all of us, and we can best approach him in a very personal way, and so on and so on. Some Christians bounce around their definition of God as the breeze blows...

Check out the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It will blow the doors off of whatever it is you think about the science of matter.

What about the particle/wave duality of matter? Does that confound you?

But to say that there is no room in a naturalistic philosophy for God is simply not true.

Only because you need God to fulfill some role in the universe other than as a bystander, a clock-starter that has long since disappeared, or as just another entity just a little superior to humans but with many of the same faults and foibles. You try to force nature to accommodate your God - why?

Not at all. Newton must have been a fool. Mendel too.

I didn't say either were fools.

Its more of an example of the progression of philosophy and the resolution of conflict through reason. Remember, there is a specific definition of reason.

Please provide your definition of it. I don't doubt it's got enough slop to include faith as just another variant, right?

Maybe because reason isnt their God? Maybe they dont prop themselves up on a pile of vain glories. Maybe their reason is really in use. Maybe they reason out their faith.

Reason slays faith. Period.

I think that you guys need to take a closer look at what reason is.

I think you're confusing reason with "rationalization".

[orangenblue2]

Whew. Been busy today. Three new pages of posts to sift through. Before I go further, I must address Llama's insistence on resorting to "philisophical" arguments when he can't answer the specific questions posed to him. This particular thread isn't about philosophy, and I hardly need a dry, boring lecture on "metaphysics" from you, Llama. I took philosophy classes and have periodically read different philisophical works over the years. To tell you the truth, I find philosophy dreary and circular. It won't surprise you to know that my favorite philosophers include Russell and Ayer. Even then, I can only handle so much at a time. If you want to debate philosophy, start another thread.

What I ask of you is really simple, and it gets this thread back on track.

Do you believe that human beings have a "soul"?

If affirmative, please describe what this "soul" is? What sort of characteristics does it have? Is everyone's "soul" the same size and shape? Where exactly does this "soul" reside in the human body? Has anybody ever seen, measured, or weighed this "soul"? Does this "soul" live within our space/time continuum or without? I await your responses with baited breath...have at it buttercup, and remember...Just Answer The Questions...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Whew. Been busy today. Three new pages of posts to sift through. Before I go further, I must address Llama's insistence on resorting to "philisophical" arguments when he can't answer the specific questions posed to him. This particular thread isn't about philosophy, and I hardly need a dry, boring lecture on "metaphysics" from you, Llama. I took philosophy classes and have periodically read different philisophical works over the years. To tell you the truth, I find philosophy dreary and circular. It won't surprise you to know that my favorite philosophers include Russell and Ayer. Even then, I can only handle so much at a time. If you want to debate philosophy, start another thread.

What I ask of you is really simple, and it gets this thread back on track.

Do you believe that human beings have a "soul"?

If affirmative, please describe what this "soul" is? What sort of characteristics does it have? Is everyone's "soul" the same size and shape? Where exactly does this "soul" reside in the human body? Has anybody ever seen, measured, or weighed this "soul"? Does this "soul" live within our space/time continuum or without? I await your responses with baited breath...have at it buttercup, and remember...Just Answer The Questions...He can't and won't. His whole shtick is trying to move religion into science to try and validate his religious beliefs.

[Willynowei]

There are some messed up threads on the War/politics/religion section... Taco moved a thread over here and thats how I usually end up wondering on to this stuff.

If you divide believers and non believers into atheists and theists for discussion, and then treat God as you would any matter of observation, then God as he is known in Chirstianity/Judaism/Islam has already escaped you.

So it amuses me when any atheist does that and then proceeds to put God in the same bucket as Zues, flyingpigs and unicorns, says "AHA!" and calls it a day.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Whew. Been busy today. Three new pages of posts to sift through. Before I go further, I must address Llama's insistence on resorting to "philisophical" arguments when he can't answer the specific questions posed to him. This particular thread isn't about philosophy, and I hardly need a dry, boring lecture on "metaphysics" from you, Llama. I took philosophy classes and have periodically read different philisophical works over the years. To tell you the truth, I find philosophy dreary and circular. It won't surprise you to know that my favorite philosophers include Russell and Ayer. Even then, I can only handle so much at a time. If you want to debate philosophy, start another thread.

This is a thread about philosophy. "The God Delusion" is a book of atheistic philosophy. If this were about relativity, then we look at the science. There is no science proposed here by Dawkins. We are looking at Dawkins' philosophy and his opinions.

I have answered every question I felt was relevant.

What I ask of you is really simple, and it gets this thread back on track.
Do you believe that human beings have a "soul"?

That's not what the thread has been about. It was breifly, but it is mainly about philosophies that are at odds with one another and frankly, it's been the atheists who have muddied the discussion by resorting to insults without addressing questions. Those people will have to resolve their own closed-mindedness to enter into debate. Debate isnt building yourself a rickety pedastal and shouting down at others. It is reasoning. Making an opinion statement to the effect of "God is akin to monkeys running races around Saturns rings" doesnt do anything for anyone.

When you debate the soul, you are debating a philosophical question. There is no wrong answer because we have no verifiable right answer. We are talking about opinions and personal philosophies.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The interesting thing is that God is something different to every Christian, and is different to the same Christian depending on the point he's trying to make. Some Christians think God is perfectly merciful, and Hell doesn't even exist; some think he's a vengeful destructor, who will punish nearly everyone with unspeakable horror and pain; others think he's deeply and personally concerned with all of us, and we can best approach him in a very personal way, and so on and so on. Some Christians bounce around their definition of God as the breeze blows...

Good, you understand that people have different experiences. Isnt that a constant in human existence? That perception is different from individual to individual? From transcription on up to one's analysis based on their physical faculties, humans have different experiences.



What about the particle/wave duality of matter? Does that confound you?

That statement doesnt deserve an answer.



Only because you need God to fulfill some role in the universe other than as a bystander, a clock-starter that has long since disappeared, or as just another entity just a little superior to humans but with many of the same faults and foibles. You try to force nature to accommodate your God - why?

There is no forcing nature. God created the nature of every macro and microcosm in the universe. It is natural for God and nature to be matched in reason.



I didn't say either were fools.

One would have to be a fool (we're talking literal definitions here still) to ignore as great a premise as the existence of God in their own philosophical meanderings.


Please provide your definition of it. I don't doubt it's got enough slop to include faith as just another variant, right?
Reason slays faith. Period.

My definition can be found in any text. Reference a dictionary or a philosophical encyclopedia and you should find your answer.


I think you're confusing reason with "rationalization"

Rationalizing is a process of reason. Give it a look.

[Willynowei]

Reason slays faith. Period.


If you said knowledge slays faith then that would some make sense.

Reason alone doesn't slay anything, it considers everything, thats the point.

[fontaine]

Read up on the anthropological examinations of religious belief. It's not my fault that you're ignorant.


I can't speak for general religious belief. I'm talking about God from the NT point of view.

So again what proof do you have that man created the NT God? Surely if you are making claims like that you have said proof because otherwise you're just being a hypocrite.


I don't believe in God - you do. Big difference, there.

Yes you do believe in God. You're belief says that man created God, just like man created the Brawny Paper Towel logo. You may not worship, have faith in God but you still have an explanation for God's existence, albeit a man made God. Except you have no proof of this:

See:
The concept of a God, or gods, or spirits, or whatever, is common across all cultures - usually invoked to explain something. The Christian God is just another one of these cultural myths, no different than the Greeks' creation of Zeus.

There it is. That's your explanation of what God is. Yet you offer no proof except opinion backed up with a generalization that in other cultures myths are created etc etc.

In other words you have no concrete proof that man created the Christian God. Yet here you are touting your opinions of what God is as the truth.

That's fine and all if you choose to believe that, it's up to you, but it still makes you a hypocrite for calling out others for using the same thought process.

[fontaine]

The interesting thing is that God is something different to every Christian, and is different to the same Christian depending on the point he's trying to make. Some Christians think God is perfectly merciful, and Hell doesn't even exist; some think he's a vengeful destructor, who will punish nearly everyone with unspeakable horror and pain; others think he's deeply and personally concerned with all of us, and we can best approach him in a very personal way, and so on and so on. Some Christians bounce around their definition of God as the breeze blows...


Funny, the same can be said of how astronomers, physicists etc account for the creation/existence of the Universe. Theories are thrown around like flavors of ice cream.

That answer is quite obvious. No one knows exactly what or exactly who God is. That's why it's so foolish to make broad sweeping statements without proof like man created the Christian God like Zeus or God hates all homosexuals and will send them to hell.

[alkemical]

Do you believe that human beings have a "soul"?

If affirmative, please describe what this "soul" is? What sort of characteristics does it have? Is everyone's "soul" the same size and shape? Where exactly does this "soul" reside in the human body? Has anybody ever seen, measured, or weighed this "soul"? Does this "soul" live within our space/time continuum or without? I await your responses with baited breath...have at it buttercup, and remember...Just Answer The Questions...

For me with no verifiable proof (and i know you were asking Llama) - i cannot say. I can see both points from both sides i study (science: psychology, neuroscience, sociology, biology & region/spirituality: Hinduism (and sorts), Buddism, Shamanism, Alchemy, G.D., Christianity (and a few flavours of it), Judisim (as well, a few flavors), Diesm, Athiesm, etc) - So with no proof either way.

With science there is evidence of alot of things, but they still don't understand consciousness. Alot of the spritual realms deal only WITH conciousness. From doing meditations and having extrodinary results which lead to (for lack of any better term) pure enlightenment that came from nowhere but with-in. I've also used post modern thought to correct negative thought proccesses that hindered myself.

How can i say one way or the either, when in both worlds - i've seen proof for each?

Until we can dertimne what conciousness really is - whether the brain is a "computer" running an "O/S" - i don't think you can put a limit on "what" a soul is....yet. Is the brain hardware, is it software, is it both? In buddism the "soul" is no different than the person as a whole, in judeo-christian-western world ways - it's a seperate entity (or is treated as such). Is it really just a machine that runs on light and runs routines and subroutines based purley on external stimuli? Or is a soul earned through trials and tribulations through life?

Why just preclude an answer when we just don't know? Why is it a crime to say: "I don't know".

[W*GS]

If you divide believers and non believers into atheists and theists for discussion, and then treat God as you would any matter of observation, then God as he is known in Chirstianity/Judaism/Islam has already escaped you.

So it amuses me when any atheist does that and then proceeds to put God in the same bucket as Zues, flyingpigs and unicorns, says "AHA!" and calls it a day.

So your God isn't like "Zues" or those other things - fine. How do we, then, distinguish your God from a mere hallucination?

[W*GS]

So again what proof do you have that man created the NT God?

Why the "NT" before "God"? Are not the OT and NT Gods the same dude, or not?

I finally see what you're getting at - you want to see proof of some sort of conspiracy or something that wrote the books of the NT, rather than as eyewitness accounts by the disciples of Jesus' work here on earth, correct?

Here's an analogy - perhaps the books of the NT were made up. What makes the NT more credible to you than (say) the Book of Mormon? To me, they're one and the same - folks writing down stories and myths that over time get elevated to religious belief. Indeed, things like the NT, the Odyssey, the OT, Gilgamesh, the Bhagivad Gita and so on, are more objects of anthropological study that they are sacred texts.

[Willynowei]

So your God isn't like "Zues" or those other things - fine. How do we, then, distinguish your God from a mere hallucination?

How do you determine the computer you are typing on, from mere hallucination? You depend on the same senses that could've manufactured that hallucination to both tell you it is there and to tell you that someone else is sharing the same experience.

You, as seperated from your body - a lone perspective is on the receiving end of a number of experiences - namely from your senses, the trust in your senses is faith. The trust that people have in their experience of God is also called faith. There is no difference except a lot of people hold physical senses above all else because it is most easily reproduced and described and shared with others, thus there's high consistency.

Touching God can be viewed as the same experience, it's described differently by different people but everyone who's done it all agree they've touched something - they call god. If an experience with God transcends human understanding then it would be difficult to describe. Thus, there lacks consistency equal to empirical findings in science, but so what? If humans are the only ones who experience God, and his essence escapes most, then it should be fairly inconsistent from person to person.

People have experiences with some consistency (not always complete) to the written scriptures of the Old/new testament bibles and the Kohran, etc. They don't have the same experiences consistent with those of Greek Mythology, mainly, not many people see a dude walking around with lighting bolts in his hand.

To put it bluntly. God differs in that he can be experienced, but obviously it would be difficult if not impossible to experience God if you flatly reject his existence and compare him to Zeus. But if you experience Zeus, and you feel he is the center of your experience, then that is fine as well, we just disagree on the experiences.

[fontaine]

Why the "NT" before "God"? Are not the OT and NT Gods the same dude, or not?

I finally see what you're getting at - you want to see proof of some sort of conspiracy or something that wrote the books of the NT, rather than as eyewitness accounts by the disciples of Jesus' work here on earth, correct?

Here's an analogy - perhaps the books of the NT were made up. What makes the NT more credible to you than (say) the Book of Mormon? To me, they're one and the same - folks writing down stories and myths that over time get elevated to religious belief. Indeed, things like the NT, the Odyssey, the OT, Gilgamesh, the Bhagivad Gita and so on, are more objects of anthropological study that they are sacred texts.

Ah, so you have at best a theory making a logical leap of non faith from the Book of Mormon, the Odyssey, the OT etc to the New Testament.

Just because other myths, legends attributed God like status to their own heros then the NT is the same?

That's your evidence for your belief that man created the Christian God?

Hilarious!

You're just making a logical leap of faith. One not so different from someone who read the NT and chooses to believe the works of the Gospels and decides to practice it to find out how relevant it is to them.

[fontaine]

Here's an analogy - perhaps the books of the NT were made up. What makes the NT more credible to you than (say) the Book of Mormon? To me, they're one and the same - folks writing down stories and myths that over time get elevated to religious belief. Indeed, things like the NT, the Odyssey, the OT, Gilgamesh, the Bhagivad Gita and so on, are more objects of anthropological study that they are sacred texts.

To answer your question directly:

Why are you asking me? Why should my opinion or that of a hindu following the Gita have any relevance or weight to your decision not to believe in any of the above?

Your assumption was and still is that I, as a Christian, somehow believe the NT is more credible or the final say on God. However, I've made no such claims. I did make it very clear that I don't know exactly what God is so I can't rule out anything in his kingdom. I have no monopoly on God or have full access rights to all relevent info and knowledge on God.

As a matter of fact I'm not into slamming other religious texts or even atheism. The only time I have an issue with atheism or other religions is when they are specifically used to attack Christianity, when it comes down to a matter of choice as I showed you in my previous post.

You choose to believe that the NT accounts of the Gospels were either fake, mass hallucinations, whatever. I don't because I've practiced the religion, studied it and have done my homework on it.

Whereas the other texts you mentioned? Yeah they hold less merit for me personally, because I did read some of them or study them/discuss them and made a conscious choice not to follow that path.

Just like you did when you chose to believe man made up the Christian God without any real proof.

[W*GS]

How do you determine the computer you are typing on, from mere hallucination?

Let's substitute a train coming down the track for my computer. If it's a hallucination, I can push you in front of it with no harm done, correct?

You, as seperated from your body - a lone perspective is on the receiving end of a number of experiences - namely from your senses, the trust in your senses is faith. The trust that people have in their experience of God is also called faith. There is no difference except a lot of people hold physical senses above all else because it is most easily reproduced and described and shared with others, thus there's high consistency.

Ahhh, but there are differences between "faith" in our senses and your faith in your God. See above.

Touching God can be viewed as the same experience, it's described differently by different people but everyone who's done it all agree they've touched something - they call god. If an experience with God transcends human understanding then it would be difficult to describe. Thus, there lacks consistency equal to empirical findings in science, but so what? If humans are the only ones who experience God, and his essence escapes most, then it should be fairly inconsistent from person to person.

You've read about the recent research that replicates features of these "spiritual experiences" with the use of drugs, haven't you? What's the difference?

To put it bluntly. God differs in that he can be experienced, but obviously it would be difficult if not impossible to experience God if you flatly reject his existence and compare him to Zeus.

Why should God's existence depend on whether or not I believe in the possibility of his existence beforehand? Like I've said, folks who are predisposed to believe in God are more likely to ascribe some experience they've had to proof of his existence. Doesn't mean God exists, however.

[W*GS]

Good, you understand that people have different experiences. Isnt that a constant in human existence? That perception is different from individual to individual? From transcription on up to one's analysis based on their physical faculties, humans have different experiences.

So, what makes your God the same God as the one Fred Phelps experiences? How do we differentiate them, or are they really the same - you just choose to ignore those aspects of God that Fred Phelps takes as a guide for his actions?

There is no forcing nature. God created the nature of every macro and microcosm in the universe. It is natural for God and nature to be matched in reason.

Reason doesn't lead you to God - only faith does.

My definition can be found in any text. Reference a dictionary or a philosophical encyclopedia and you should find your answer.

Provide your favorite. Also provide your favorite definition for faith. Contrast the two.

Rationalizing is a process of reason. Give it a look.

I'm using "rationalizing" here to mean coming up with post facto explanations that have no real basis in fact. Rationalizing the stealing of office supplies because they don't pay you enough, for example. There's a lot of rationalization coming from your end of the argument, certainly.

[W*GS]

That answer is quite obvious. No one knows exactly what or exactly who God is.

Is your God actually Satan in disguise? How do you think you know otherwise? Is Dawkins wrong when he says your God is:

Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Since you don't know exactly...

[Willynowei]

Let's substitute a train coming down the track for my computer. If it's a hallucination, I can push you in front of it with no harm done, correct?



Ahhh, but there are differences between "faith" in our senses and your faith in your God. See above.



You've read about the recent research that replicates features of these "spiritual experiences" with the use of drugs, haven't you? What's the difference?



Why should God's existence depend on whether or not I believe in the possibility of his existence beforehand? Like I've said, folks who are predisposed to believe in God are more likely to ascribe some experience they've had to proof of his existence. Doesn't mean God exists, however.

1.
How do you know I'm there?

Couldn't you be in a dream as Des Cartes would say? Couldn't it all be fake? Again, you trust it isn't because of the consistency from day to day, over time. Otherwise we could all be living in the matrix, sounds wacky but when you get down to it, in simple modal talk, what you take as reality is completely observered from your senses. The entire world, every last bit - its all contingent, and you have faith that all of this is not a dream/fantasy/weird matrix world.

2.
I bet if I could stuff you full of some drugs, shrooms maybe? that would make you hallucinate a train comming at you. Does that discount the existence of the train? By your logic it does if drugs that reproduce spiritual feelings which people attribute to God, can somehow go against him.

3.
For the same reason you have to trust empirical knowledge like science to know the earth is round, or on a more basic level, you have to believe that you are awake and not dreaming to recognize you are actually typing on a computer right now.

If you were to reject the grounds of which Spiritual experience with God is founded, then that would equate to rejecting the grounds of which empirical knowledge and all that is observed in the world is founded. Why don't you try entertaining the thought W*Gs, I'd be willing to bet you have. Now close your eyes and pray. If you come up with nothing fine. If you do, then you'll save me a lot of typing ;)

[W*GS]

Let's cut to the chase.

If you were to reject the grounds of which Spiritual experience with God is founded, then that would equate to rejecting the grounds of which empirical knowledge and all that is observed in the world is founded.

We can distinguish between dreams, hallucinations, and so on, and reality, so your assertion that a spiritual experience is real is false.

Why don't you try entertaining the thought W*Gs, I'd be willing to bet you have. Now close your eyes and pray.

Suppose I pray that you'll respond to my comments. Does that mean I've had a spiritual experience, and thus your God exists, and I oughta quit being an atheist?

[alkemical]

Let's cut to the chase.



We can distinguish between dreams, hallucinations, and so on, and reality, so your assertion that a spiritual experience is real is false.



Suppose I pray that you'll respond to my comments. Does that mean I've had a spiritual experience, and thus your God exists, and I oughta quit being an atheist?

I'm not going to try to change/redirect this - But wags - did you ever have a "trip" or a "dream" that was that real? Like you could smell or taste things, or feel emotion?

Just a question - because i'm interested - if you never have - that may go along way in me understanding your POV on alot of things.

[W*GS]

But wags - did you ever have a "trip" or a "dream" that was that real? Like you could smell or taste things, or feel emotion?

I can tell the difference between a dream and real experience. I've never had a drug-induced trip.

[fontaine]

Is your God actually Satan in disguise? How do you think you know otherwise? Is Dawkins wrong when he says your God is:

Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Since you don't know exactly...

It's been nice talking to you W*GS but I'm not going to bother responding any more since you're clearly not responding to my posts on page 8. You just cherry pick single points from my posts and distort them to worst possible scenarios cases, in order to provoke some sort of reaction I guess.

Good luck with your atheism.
:thumbsup:

[W*GS]

It's been nice talking to you W*GS but I'm not going to bother responding any more since you're clearly not responding to my posts on page 8. You just cherry pick single points from my posts and distort them to worst possible scenarios cases, in order to provoke some sort of reaction I guess.

I'm skipping over the rhetorical fluff and getting to the meat of the issue.

I'm not the one who believes in something he does not (and cannot) know.

Good luck with your atheism.

At the very least, I don't waste time, effort, and energy on a false belief.

[Willynowei]

Let's cut to the chase.



We can distinguish between dreams, hallucinations, and so on, and reality, so your assertion that a spiritual experience is real is false.



Suppose I pray that you'll respond to my comments. Does that mean I've had a spiritual experience, and thus your God exists, and I oughta quit being an atheist?

I'll try to do it with an example that you can accept.

Why don't we try the concept of love as an example. People talk about it all the time, they define it loosely and it differs for some and strikes similarly with others.

Lets say you've experienced love and I haven't. In fact, I don't believe in it, I'm just a college kid who's been very convenient on who he "loves" to get what I'm looking for. I reject the entire notion and concept of love. I don't care to ever go into a commited relationship to find out.

So, W*Gs, how would you convince me love exists? If you can't convince me, does that mean love doesn't exist?

Experiencing a connection to God is in a way similar. I can barely be sure of the experience myself, though I know its there. If you genuinely pray, you'll have a good shot at having it all click for you, just like if I, the college kid genuinely tried to settle for someone.

To end,

No, you can't always distinguish a dream state from a reality state, and even if you could it doesn't matter. Imagine a dream state where you could not, that is all. There is a difference between what we observe every day and take as reality vs. what is possible.

I'm telling you, its possible you are dreaming right now, you deny that?

[BroncoInferno]

I'll try to do it with an example that you can accept.

Why don't we try the concept of love as an example. People talk about it all the time, they define it loosely and it differs for some and strikes similarly with others.

Lets say you've experienced love and I haven't. In fact, I don't believe in it, I'm just a college kid who's been very convenient on who he "loves" to get what I'm looking for. I reject the entire notion and concept of love. I don't care to ever go into a commited relationship to find out.

So, W*Gs, how would you convince me love exists? If you can't convince me, does that mean love doesn't exist?

Experiencing a connection to God is in a way similar. I can barely be sure of the experience myself, though I know its there. If you genuinely pray, you'll have a good shot at having it all click for you, just like if I, the college kid genuinely tried to settle for someone.

To end,

No, you can't always distinguish a dream state from a reality state, and even if you could it doesn't matter. Imagine a dream state where you could not, that is all. There is a difference between what we observe every day and take as reality vs. what is possible.

I'm telling you, its possible you are dreaming right now, you deny that?

Hilarious!

[alkemical]

I can tell the difference between a dream and real experience. I've never had a drug-induced trip.

Well i've had several lucid dreams while sleeping that were real enough that they were real until i woke up.

Now here's a question Wags:

I was rasied in a prodestant household, but I myself a member of that "religion". I have alot of agnosticism, because i don't know what god IS. Were you "brought" up in a household environment that was more aiken to athiesm? Was it a positive imprint for you? (You don't have to be detailed if you choose to answer.) I'm curious as to the nature/nurture thing (i believe there has to be a balance, but you can override many aspects of your programming).

[alkemical]

Hilarious!

He's got the right idea on comparing love to faith. It's emotional. But i'd seperate faith & (specific god). Until you feel it, you don't quite know what it is.

[W*GS]

Well i've had several lucid dreams while sleeping that were real enough that they were real until i woke up.

A dream is still a dream. You woke up.

Were you "brought" up in a household environment that was more aiken to athiesm?

Nope.

[W*GS]

Lets say you've experienced love and I haven't. In fact, I don't believe in it, I'm just a college kid who's been very convenient on who he "loves" to get what I'm looking for. I reject the entire notion and concept of love. I don't care to ever go into a commited relationship to find out.

As if the intimate love between two adults is the only kind of love there is. There's the love you have for your friends, your parents, your children, and so on.

So, W*Gs, how would you convince me love exists?

See the above relationships for examples.

Experiencing a connection to God is in a way similar. I can barely be sure of the experience myself, though I know its there.

How do you know it's God you're experiencing, if God is truly unknowable?

No, you can't always distinguish a dream state from a reality state, and even if you could it doesn't matter. Imagine a dream state where you could not, that is all.

Imagining such a state and such a state actually existing are two different things. I can imagine a moonbase, but one doesn't actually exist. That one can imagine something means nothing as to the actual existence of the thing. Obviously.

I'm telling you, its possible you are dreaming right now, you deny that?

Yes, I deny that. I am not dreaming, but perhaps you are if you think dreams and reality are indistinguishable.

[alkemical]

A dream is still a dream. You woke up.



Nope.


To be honest, with the one dream - i still can' say i woke up.


I'll note your omission on if it were positive or not for you as well. (that's personal and you have the choice to answer/not answer).

[Willynowei]

As if the intimate love between two adults is the only kind of love there is. There's the love you have for your friends, your parents, your children, and so on.



See the above relationships for examples.



How do you know it's God you're experiencing, if God is truly unknowable?



Imagining such a state and such a state actually existing are two different things. I can imagine a moonbase, but one doesn't actually exist. That one can imagine something means nothing as to the actual existence of the thing. Obviously.



Yes, I deny that. I am not dreaming, but perhaps you are if you think dreams and reality are indistinguishable.

1.) So fine, pretend I'm an orphan who hates everyone and the world, does it really matter?

2.) I can prove God exists as much as you can prove to me that you exist. In other words, neither of us can.

3.) How do you know a moonbase doesn't exist? this stuff is going right over your head, because you are relying on a circular line of reasoning.

Everything you say about reality is regressive, it doesn't hold any ground.

What you call real is experienced through the senses, my point is that your senses could be deceived, ie, in a dream state or a hallucination, your point is to come back and say that you can tell the difference between a dream/imaginary state and a real one? But how? Through those same senses I'm questioning...

Its circular, you're not making any progress. No W*Gs, its as simple as this, you will never get anywhere trying to argue with me that you can tell the difference between a perfect dream and reality.

Furthermore you cannot discount the existence of a perfect dream, you can only doubt it.

So you can doubt my case, you can't disprove it. On the other hand I could easily defeat any case that says what we sense is what there is, because all I'd have to do is create a case where your senses are deceived.

First you have to get past that thought barrier before we can go anywhere with this discussion.

[Willynowei]

Yes, I deny that. I am not dreaming, but perhaps you are if you think dreams and reality are indistinguishable.

You're kidding me... I'm seperating this line to a new reply because this is just too good... LOL

Explain to me why it is impossible that you are dreaming right now.

[BroncoInferno]

He's got the right idea on comparing love to faith. It's emotional. But i'd seperate faith & (specific god). Until you feel it, you don't quite know what it is.

No, he doesn't have the right idea. "Love" is simply a word we use to describe an emotion, it is not posited as an actual entity existing somewhere out in the great blue yonder. Now, if your talking about some sort of New Age "God is nature" crap, then that isn't what this discussion or the book is about.

[alkemical]

No, he doesn't have the right idea. "Love" is simply a word we use to describe an emotion, it is not posited as an actual entity existing somewhere out in the great blue yonder. Now, if your talking about some sort of New Age "God is nature" crap, then that isn't what this discussion or the book is about.

Hold on there chief - re-read what i wrote. I said FAITH (while removing a specific god) - FAITH is an emotional entity.

But i would disagree with you about god being nature. If you were to worship something, the earth isn't a bad place to start... ;) hehehe

[Willynowei]

No, he doesn't have the right idea. "Love" is simply a word we use to describe an emotion, it is not posited as an actual entity existing somewhere out in the great blue yonder. Now, if your talking about some sort of New Age "God is nature" crap, then that isn't what this discussion or the book is about.

No thats not what I mean at all, and neither is Clav right, even though he's a lot closer.

"Experience of God" and God are two different things. I am comparing that to the experience of love, both are emotional states, neither is a solid state entity.
EDIT: I didn't like the sun example
Obviously I woudln't compare an emotion with God himself, that wouldn't make sense thats like comparing the smell of smoked brisket to pulled pork, I'm actually comparing the smell of the brisket to the smell of the pork.

Yeah thats what I'm thinking of right now, Alec's post on the other threads got me big on BBQ.

[BroncoInferno]

No thats not what I mean at all, and neither is Clav right, even though he's a lot closer.

"Experience of God" and God are two different things. I am comparing that to the experience of love, both are emotional states, neither is a solid state entity.

"Experience of God" would require that God actually exist. That is not the same thing as what we call "love."

[Willynowei]

"Experience of God" would require that God actually exist. That is not the same thing as what we call "love."

You are jumping ahead, I'm trying to take it step by step, and its a lot to write, please read the original posts to understand what context I posted it under.

We are not at that step yet. I am first defending the existence of an experience, I am not cemmenting it with God, but we are only labeling it as such right now.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If an empiricist cant put any faith in anything that hasnt been confirmed by the scientific method, should he really be concerned at all about issues such as God?

One would think that it would be a waste of time. You cannot come to a conclusion one way or another because there is no empirical evidence available to us that says God does or does not exist. One may be convinced by a theory that can explain rationally how a person would be subjugated by an illusion, but that IS NOT empirical evidence. That is an idea. That is a neural relationship that is pleasing to your brain. It resolves conflicts within your own consciousness, but it is NOT empirical evidence. It is pseudoscience.

This is one of the problems with this type of naturalistic skepticism. It has so little truth to work with that the main construct of its belief system is induced from so many inductions that it doesnt address the issues of existence with anything of substance. Not to mention that its truth gathering mechanism is technically at odds with its methods of theory.

So, shouldnt the empiricist be more willing to let this issue go? And to let the philosophers who have a main concern with dealing in these difficult issues have at them?

I mean, if you dont have anything to add (no empirical evidence), why detract from the conversation by trying to encapsulate it with a worldview that doesnt address the issue at all? If you cannot come to a conclusion without science coming to a conclusion through experimentation (which may never happen), then the issue may never be resolved for you. You will go to your grave without an answer that meets the standards of the scientific method.

[alkemical]

No thats not what I mean at all, and neither is Clav right, even though he's a lot closer.

"Experience of God" and God are two different things. I am comparing that to the experience of love, both are emotional states, neither is a solid state entity.
EDIT: I didn't like the sun example
Obviously I woudln't compare an emotion with God himself, that wouldn't make sense thats like comparing the smell of smoked brisket to pulled pork, I'm actually comparing the smell of the brisket to the smell of the pork.

Yeah thats what I'm thinking of right now, Alec's post on the other threads got me big on BBQ.

Mind you, i didn't say expirence of god - i said faith was an emotional entity.... (just a clarification)_

[BroncoInferno]

If an empiricist cant put any faith in anything that hasnt been confirmed by the scientific method, should he really be concerned at all about issues such as God?

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, there are those religious types who wish to force their views on those of us who do not share in their fantasies (e.g. attempts to wedge I.D.--creationism in a cheap lab coat--into science classes where it has no place, preventing consenting citizens from marrying whomever they see fit, efforts to center our nations laws around their religion, crashing airplanes into buildings to martyr themselves before their god, etc). If the whole enterprise were purely benign, I would not give rats fanny either way.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, there are those religious types who wish to force their views on those of us who do not share in their fantasies (e.g. attempts to wedge I.D.--creationism in a cheap lab coat--into science classes where it has no place, preventing consenting citizens from marrying whomever they see fit, efforts to center our nations laws around their religion, crashing airplanes into buildings to martyr themselves before their god, etc). If the whole enterprise were purely benign, I would not give rats fanny either way.

Naturalism, mainly secular humanism, simply is not practical. One cannot count on something so fraught with contradictions, and with so little to offer everyday Joe and his family, to hold the attention of a populace. It simply wont happen. You would have to expect that it trump tradition and the very core of belief that American families (especially in your neighborhood) have based their morality and devotion on since the inception of the country and beyond. I dont think that naturalistic atheism makes a very good case anyway. Once we think beyond the academic fad of entertaining the contrarian ideas of atheism to play devils advocate in a nation of theists, the ideas will become even further marginalized, in my opinion.

Within the American system of local democratic governance, one should expect that there be a high ratio of theist to atheist. Proselytizing for atheism is no different than trying to win converts to theist philosophies. The only difference is that theist philosophies have something practical to offer the convert, while naturalistic atheism has nothing to offer but some ideas and severe disappointment. Which is a better sell?

[BroncoInferno]

Naturalism, mainly secular humanism, simply is not practical. One cannot count on something so fraught with contradictions

Hilarious! As if Christianity is not wrought with outrageous contradictions and absurd claims. Too funny ROFL!

Proselytizing for atheism is no different than trying to win converts to theist philosophies.

I have no interest in converting people to atheism through public schools, or really by any means. As I said, I could care less what people believe, so long as they observe the clear edict in the constitution that (wisely) seperates church and state. Public schools are for learning practical life skills that are theologically neutral. The supernatural can be taught at home and/or in church by parents and pastors (if that is the wish of the parents). Why is that not enough for you?

Which is a better sell?

What "sells" does not add intrinsic worth to anything. Happy mythologies that allow people to believe they can circumvent death are certainly sellable ideas; that does make them good ideas or any less false.

[epicSocialism4tw]

As if Christianity is not wrought with outrageous contradictions and absurd claims. Too funny

Mainstream Christian philosophy is quite refined. Years and years of academic deconstruction and reconstruction have done great things for it. It still stands on the same legs it was borne on.

I have no interest in converting people to atheism through public schools, or really by any means. As I said, I could care less what people believe, so long as they observe the clear edict in the constitution that (wisely) seperates church and state. Public schools are for learning practical life skills that are theologically neutral. The supernatural can be taught at home and/or in church by parents and pastors (if that is the wish of the parents). Why is that not enough for you?

This is a whole other debate, but what you think of school as a place to learn "practical life skills" is not what it is today. Excluding anything from the marketplace of ideas is not a wise thing to do. It seems that only atheists want to exclude everything but their own ideas, as if school is an institution where only their intellectual values are acceptable. This is the same problem we see on this thread.


What "sells" does not add intrinsic worth to anything. Happy mythologies that allow people to believe they can circumvent death are certainly sellable ideas; that does make them good ideas or any less false.


Nobody claimed that its attractiveness indicated its worth. I claimed that its attractiveness contributes to the idea that it will be more viable for a longer period of time. This is in response to your statement that those ideas dont belong in the marketplace of ideas discussed in school classrooms.

[Bob]

Hilarious! As if Christianity is not wrought with outrageous contradictions and absurd claims. Too funny ROFL!



I have no interest in converting people to atheism through public schools, or really by any means. As I said, I could care less what people believe, so long as they observe the clear edict in the constitution that (wisely) seperates church and state. Public schools are for learning practical life skills that are theologically neutral. The supernatural can be taught at home and/or in church by parents and pastors (if that is the wish of the parents). Why is that not enough for you?



What "sells" does not add intrinsic worth to anything. Happy mythologies that allow people to believe they can circumvent death are certainly sellable ideas; that does make them good ideas or any less false.

If it is hilarious for you to consider that others may see inconsistencies in the logic posed by some aspects of godlessness it sure must make it harder to hear others out. Don’t you think? I can at least understand, and even respect some who don’t have a conviction of God. You have done a good job usually in trying to use logic to explain your position, but we have to be able to look at inconstancies where ever they reside, and at least acknowledge them (or acknowledge that we have not figured it all out just yet.)

I think there was wisdom as our founding Fathers incorporated separation of church and state, due to the abuses of the time (and in modern history.) There should not be one religious sect that is ever state-sponsored, as was the case early on in our nations pre-formation. I do wonder about the difference implied as folks talk about freedom of religion, and say that it means freedom FROM religion. I am still struggling with the notion that a small minority, can dictate to the majority that it can’t pray before a graduation ceremony for example. Not that majority trumps all, but honestly what is the percentage of those that are ok with prayer in such a situation vs. those that are adamantly against it? I wonder how far it can/should go, and at what point does Godlessness take upon itself its own religious feel and zealousness to stomp out God from anywhere near the public square.

I think that there are some cultural movements (like some aspects of environmentalism) that supposedly use “science” to create a druid-like religion. Those scientists that don’t hold the majority view and speak out on the subject are blacklisted, and cut themselves off from funding. It is taught in schools as if it was a settled issue, and rarely allow for an alternative view. The only truth that can be openly taught is that humans are the cause of this looming danger and to me it seems like a replacement for religion for some folks. Many seem to worship the creation, and participate in a form of self-flagellation through denial, and ignore the fact that as the world heated up at the end of the last ice age and we were not the cause of that major shift either.

[BroncoInferno]

Mainstream Christian philosophy is quite refined. Years and years of academic deconstruction and reconstruction have done great things for it. It still stands on the same legs it was borne on.

What you refer to as "acedemic desconstruction and reconstruction" is little more than a survival mechanism used by Christianity in response to the ever-shifting zeitgeist. When the zeitgeist rejects religious doctrine, theologians have little choice but to make revisions or else risk irrelevancy. This brand of liberal Christianity is little more than secualr humanism without the intellectual honesty to call itself such.

This is a whole other debate, but what you think of school as a place to learn "practical life skills" is not what it is today. Excluding anything from the marketplace of ideas is not a wise thing to do. It seems that only atheists want to exclude everything but their own ideas, as if school is an institution where only their intellectual values are acceptable. This is the same problem we see on this thread.

What atheistic ideas are taught in public schools?

Nobody claimed that its attractiveness indicated its worth. I claimed that its attractiveness contributes to the idea that it will be more viable for a longer period of time. This is in response to your statement that those ideas dont belong in the marketplace of ideas discussed in school classrooms.

Public schools are not an appropriate testing ground for theories that have been insufficently tested or studied (I'm speaking specifically of I.D. here). In the Dover trial, Michael Behe (one of I.D.'s top intellectuals) was forced to concede that his expanded definition of science (expanded so as to encompass I.D. as science) would also encompass astrology. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose astrology became a popular, widely held belief. Would it be OK with you for astrology to be presented as a legitimate scientific theory?

[W*GS]

[...]

Your entire argument revolves around epistemology.

Since our senses can be faulty, they cannot be trusted - which implicitly accepts that our senses can be accurate, otherwise, how would we know that they sometimes aren't?

Suppose you believe you're in a dream - and in that dream, you step off a 500 foot cliff. Would you actually die?

[W*GS]

Naturalism, mainly secular humanism, simply is not practical. One cannot count on something so fraught with contradictions, and with so little to offer everyday Joe and his family, to hold the attention of a populace.

What does theism offer, really?

You would have to expect that it trump tradition and the very core of belief that American families (especially in your neighborhood) have based their morality and devotion on since the inception of the country and beyond.

This is one of the weakest arguments, ever. In the past, we've believed men superior to women, whites superior to all other races, slavery is just fine and dandy, and all other manner of ideas that some of us now know are wrong. Many of those ideas have a lineage longer even than Christianity. Does that mean an old idea is right merely by virtue of its longevity? That's all you're asserting, and I've already shown it wrong.

[W*GS]

Explain to me why it is impossible that you are dreaming right now.

Because in my dream world, there are no theists.

[Bob]

I'll try to do it with an example that you can accept.

Why don't we try the concept of love as an example. People talk about it all the time, they define it loosely and it differs for some and strikes similarly with others.

Lets say you've experienced love and I haven't. In fact, I don't believe in it, I'm just a college kid who's been very convenient on who he "loves" to get what I'm looking for. I reject the entire notion and concept of love. I don't care to ever go into a commited relationship to find out.

So, W*Gs, how would you convince me love exists? If you can't convince me, does that mean love doesn't exist?

Experiencing a connection to God is in a way similar. I can barely be sure of the experience myself, though I know its there. If you genuinely pray, you'll have a good shot at having it all click for you, just like if I, the college kid genuinely tried to settle for someone.

To end,

No, you can't always distinguish a dream state from a reality state, and even if you could it doesn't matter. Imagine a dream state where you could not, that is all. There is a difference between what we observe every day and take as reality vs. what is possible.

I'm telling you, its possible you are dreaming right now, you deny that?

There has to be a common frame of reference to things that are experiential. As W*GS has disregarded the possibility that God exists, and because he doesn’t seem to be willing to take any actions, or show effort to try an experiment with things of a spiritual nature (as there does not seem to be a need, and as those things seem more than silly, but dangerous) it will be impossible to experience God on any level.

Love works for one thing, that is hard to describe, but is real. One reason it is hard to explain in words is that it is an emotion, if one does not experience one cannot know. W*GS you may feel that God is only a dangerous emotion, but as you have stated that you have not felt his presence, then it becomes impossible to find much common ground.

The analogy that I used earlier, that folks did not tear down, is that of salt and the challenges of describing its taste. If I denied that you have ever tasted salt, and asked that you prove it, you would not be able to. You could tell me what it isn’t, you could use some lame Mrs. Dash comparison, but that too would fall short. It is experiential, it is arrogant for someone to say you have never tasted anything, when you are not willing to open your pie whole and say Ahhh. But if the idea of going through some simple steps, and to be willing to maintain some suspension of disbelief long enough to try some methods to drawing closer to Deity, well then there is little anyone could say to change a person’s convictions against their will. A wonderful story is in the old testament that talks about the followers of Moses who were asked to just look on a brass serpent on a stick to be cured (of poison that would kill them) there were many that were not even willing to look up from the ground and stare at a freaking stick, because of the simplicity of the process, and as they felt it was foolish.

[Bob]

What's the definition of a miracle if not an event that violates the laws of nature? Feeding a multitude from a single twinkie, for example.

Besides, how would you distinguish a miracle from a standard magic trick?

Poor logic, Obviously miracles appear to violate the laws of nature just as it would appear to violate the laws of nature to those living 1000 years ago if they could see you driving around a VW.

[W*GS]

Obviously miracles appear to violate the laws of nature just as it would appear to violate the laws of nature to those living 1000 years ago if they could see you driving around a VW.

So miracles really don't violate the laws of nature - they're just sufficiently advanced technological to appear magical or miraculous? Interesting take.

Why are God's actions (in the form of miracles) constrained by natural laws?

[W*GS]

W*GS you may feel that God is only a dangerous emotion, but as you have stated that you have not felt his presence, then it becomes impossible to find much common ground.

Suppose I have some sort of experience that I decide is God. How do I know it is?

The analogy that I used earlier, that folks did not tear down, is that of salt and the challenges of describing its taste.

It's a poor analogy. I can demonstrate the taste of salt to you incredibly easily. You cannot demonstrate God to me as easily.

[Bob]

Suppose I have some sort of experience that I decide is God. How do I know it is?



It's a poor analogy. I can demonstrate the taste of salt to you incredibly easily. You cannot demonstrate God to me as easily.

Thank you for speaking honestly. I would say simply that anyone who wants to begin to experience something of a spiritual nature – could just try “an experiment” they could do any number of things (including prayer) and ask for a better understanding if he is real, and for the humility and vision to see things for what they are. I don’t think your head will explode, you wont loose all ability to think rationally. The “laws of science” use provable, replicable methods to search out truth, I think that one can broaden their experiences by trying things, before assuming that all those that believe in God are at best weak, at worst delusional. I have tried these things out, and I know that God is real, because of yes, you guessed it the experiential. There are many who know that God is real because of experiences that are too sacred to relate, to be honest a football website is an almost impossible public context for someone to let their guard down. But part of me thinks, why not talk with someone who has very different views then yourself on this subject, and ask the question – how could a person find out about if God is real, if they are convinced that he is not. Yes, you could crush them in an argument, so resist the urge to have them prove anything. What if you have the order wrong (seeing is believing) in finding out about this particular truth, then why are you above taking a chance of learning something from them? Ask them what a person should do, and take their advice seriously, regarding initial steps that one could take. Its not like you believe your gonna be damned for trying out some of the initial steps to attempt to find out The first time I prayed out loud in the privacy of my home, and took a chance it may have been one of the scariest things I have done, but I am glad I did.

[Bob]

So miracles really don't violate the laws of nature - they're just sufficiently advanced technological to appear magical or miraculous? Interesting take.

Why are God's actions (in the form of miracles) constrained by natural laws?

God just knows crap we dont, thats all.

[Bob]

So miracles really don't violate the laws of nature - they're just sufficiently advanced technological to appear magical or miraculous? Interesting take.

Why are God's actions (in the form of miracles) constrained by natural laws?

I did not answer part of your question, but if there was a God, who was pretty smart, wouldnt you also be beholden to natural laws?

[W*GS]

God just knows crap we dont, thats all.

I suppose God could know if there are living beings under the ice covering the surface of Europa, but that's probably not the kind of knowledge you have in mind.

What you probably mean is that God can (and does) know things that we humans cannot (and will not, ever) know.

[W*GS]

One of the difficulties in the various conversations going on is that we haven't all decided on what concept "God" denotes, i.e., what is "God".

Let's have the believers chime in as to how they define God. Otherwise, we might as all be discussing blarks or unies.

[W*GS]

Check out the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Is your God subject to it, or does his omniscience (if he has it) get around it?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Is your God subject to it, or does his omniscience (if he has it) get around it?

I understand my God to be the author of the universe in its entirety. Anything that the human mind could ever uncover in any fashion would be subject to the will of God. God is not the universe, God is not confined to a process within the universe, God is not an element of the universe.

[alkemical]

Because in my dream world, there are no theists.


So what happened to you that caused you to hate all people who believe in religion? (hate maybe a strong word, but your statement above is pretty telling).

[W*GS]

So what happened to you that caused you to hate all people who believe in religion?

Like the Christians say, I don't hate the sinner, I hate the sin.

[alkemical]

Like the Christians say, I don't hate the sinner, I hate the sin.

So.... what are you doing then? Being like those fundamentalists that just judge to judge because it makes them feel better/superior/etc?

[Willynowei]

Your entire argument revolves around epistemology.

Since our senses can be faulty, they cannot be trusted - which implicitly accepts that our senses can be accurate, otherwise, how would we know that they sometimes aren't?


You don't have to accept your senses as accurate to doubt them. I could doubt that the sun will rise tommorow even though the sun has never failed to rise in the past. We are talking about what is possible which encompasses almost everything. There is no argument here, it is simply a flat rejection on your part to consider what is possible.

Here's your formulation:
1.) I have senses
2.) I have experienced times where they have failed in the past.
3.) I experienced these failures through my senses
4.) From past experience, I conclude my senses could be faulty
5.) Questioning my senses relies on their past failure, which assumes my senses are accurate at some point and I am aware of it when they fail me.
6.) Therefore, in order to question my senses I must conceed that I can distinguish between a failure of the senses and when they are working properly, otherwise, I should assume my senses are accurate.

Basically this depends on steps 5 and 6 attacking steps 3 and 4 for a circular conclusion.

But this defeats it with ease:
1.) I have senses
2.) They have never failed me
3.) I rely on one sense (touching) to justify the accuracy of another sense, (seeing).
4.) If all my senses were to deceive me and still be consistent with each other, I would have no way of knowing such, as I justify each of my senses through another.
5.) My senses could be faulty

Just concede that your senses could fail you, this is not an argument in philosophy W*Gs, its an accepted principle, you failed before you tried.

[W*GS]

So.... what are you doing then? Being like those fundamentalists that just judge to judge because it makes them feel better/superior/etc?

I'm merely interested in the rationalizations, evasions and so forth that theists attempt to use to justify their belief. And thank God I'm not one of them.

[W*GS]

You don't have to accept your senses as accurate to doubt them.

How would you accept the notion of doubt without the notion of correctness in the first place?

Just concede that your senses could fail you, this is not an argument in philosophy W*Gs, its an accepted principle, you failed before you tried.

Of course my sense experiences could be faulty. Duh.

Now, given your epistemological skepticism, how do you know your experience of God isn't also just a flawed sense-experience?

[W*GS]

I understand my God to be the author of the universe in its entirety. Anything that the human mind could ever uncover in any fashion would be subject to the will of God. God is not the universe, God is not confined to a process within the universe, God is not an element of the universe.

So the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle doesn't apply to God at all... Just say so.

On the other hand, does it even make sense to speak of a supernatural being?

[alkemical]

I'm merely interested in the rationalizations, evasions and so forth that theists attempt to use to justify their belief. And thank God I'm not one of them.

Why would an athiest thank god? ;)

Anyway - if you want to delve even deeper into it. Wouldn't a person's own imprint of a positive/negative "event" also help create belief/disbelief? If "you" (subjective) had parents that were highly judgemental "theists", could that create a condition where someone's internal projections could cause a clouded judgement upon what they see? As in, that individual (subjective "you") - will then look for any reason to find fault in an ideology as a way to use their agression against past "aggressors"?

Same principle really of course, applies vice/versa.


If you are really interested in the "rationalizations" offered by "theists" - shouldn't you study what they believe in as to get an understanding of the "how's & why's"? Or is it that you aren't really interested, and you just like to "prod" them more under the guise of "being interested"? Or maybe rephrase the way you ask questions to illicit a different set of responses. Instead of using an attacking method of questioning, why not just be more inquisitive? You find what you seek Wags, ask in an aggressive manner, and your answers will be diluted by an emotional response that will be less clear than an actual "investigation" as to how and why and what, people "believe".

[Willynowei]

Of course my sense experiences could be faulty. Duh.

Now, given your epistemological skepticism, how do you know your experience of God isn't also just a flawed sense-experience?

Good, so we've made progress. Now that we've taken a step forward, we can go back to my original statement.

Your experiences could be faulty, thus, your conviction that they are not is a matter of trust. In fact, its a matter of faith. My conviction of God's existence could also be faulty. But i have a matter of trust - I call faith.

The difference is again, in consistency, it is the only thing that seperates us. For me, my personal experiences have been consistent enough over time and also to the bible to warrant my belief.

The point is W*Gs, the believer and the nonbeliever stand on even ground regarding the issue of God, and all the empirical knowledge available could not tip that balance as long as the believer's experiences with God have been consistent.

[W*GS]

Anyway - if you want to delve even deeper into it. Wouldn't a person's own imprint of a positive/negative "event" also help create belief/disbelief? If "you" (subjective) had parents that were highly judgemental "theists", could that create a condition where someone's internal projections could cause a clouded judgement upon what they see? As in, that individual (subjective "you") - will then look for any reason to find fault in an ideology as a way to use their agression against past "aggressors"?

Possibly. That explanation doesn't apply in my case - I was raised as a Lutheran, but relatively casually. Sure, I went to church with my family every Sunday, did the camp-for-a-week in the summer three times (at ages 10, 11, and 15), took my first communion and did all that stuff, but I wasn't raised excessively religiously, in comparing my upbringing to other people I've talked to.

One thing about going to that camp for a week when I was 15 - I spent more time ogling the girls, and fantasizing about them, than I spent thinking about Jesus and God and getting spiritual. Hormones won out, big time.

If you are really interested in the "rationalizations" offered by "theists" - shouldn't you study what they believe in as to get an understanding of the "how's & why's"?

I'm familiar enough with theistic belief.

Or maybe rephrase the way you ask questions to illicit a different set of responses. Instead of using an attacking method of questioning, why not just be more inquisitive?

See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1583415&postcount=237

[W*GS]

Your experiences could be faulty, thus, your conviction that they are not is a matter of trust. In fact, its a matter of faith.

Actually, no. You still haven't figured out that to know error, one has to know correctness. What you're claiming is that (for example) if a calculator says "5" when asked "2 + 2 = ?", then an answer of "4" is also questionable. However, we know that "4" is correct, ergo, we have doubt about the "5". We cannot judge the "5" questionable without knowing the "4" is correct.

The difference is again, in consistency, it is the only thing that seperates us. For me, my personal experiences have been consistent enough over time and also to the bible to warrant my belief.

What sort of experiences?

The point is W*Gs, the believer and the nonbeliever stand on even ground regarding the issue of God,

Well no, they don't.