Bunch of dam nonsense

[motherengine]

if it is so obvious that existance is a painful gateway to nothingness (and i am not saying i believe otherwise) then why is it necessary to intellectually defend such a stance against people who need to believe otherwise so badly that they have to argue their position? why not just ignore them? seems that insecurity swings both ways to me.

[Morphyous]

OK, sure. Everyone without Christ is going to Hell.

 

People who make statements like this give Christians a bad name.

 

Dont you think that a force as powerful as the Creator of the whole universe, would have better things do do than condemn people to Hell for merely not believing .

 

Of course, it may be a massive con trick on Gods behalf and the people who believe in this hateful doctrine are themselves the likely recipients of hell and brimstone.

 

Dont be so smug, you may have picked the wrong religeon, there's plenty to choose from.

[Tormod]

It seems ID-ers are very concerned with trying to avoid using Christianity as the basis for their "science", so they call it ID instead of creationism. And when you press them on the issue, it always comes down to a faith in God after all. Why not call a shovel a shovel and be done with it.

[TINNY]

I actually just found myself having read through this whole thread from start to finish, and i find myself wondering.

i haven't gone through the whole thread yet, but i get the general idea. I see your Straw Man.

 

How can you hold a system of thought as valid sometimes but not others? some believers think the same toward to non-believers, you know.

 

Also, to the sceptics and debunkers, personally i think it's healthy to realise that 'faith in an afterlife' or the 'existence of jesus' is what's known as a "core-belief". Rational argument has no impact on such a thing (just watch the response to my question... i doubt there will be one because unforunately i think it's not understood....... or maybe now ive said this there will be...).

and vice versa.

 

why is it that you believe in the afterlife?

-because i believe there is more to life and existence than just this crude, 3D, materialistic plane.

It's not as simple as you think, my friend. I agree that there is more to life than this physical existence. Consciousness, and consequently free-will, does not seem to obey the fundamental forces of physics.

About the materialistic plane, i have mentioned the special theory of relativity proves that electromagnetic energy (photons) does not belong to the physical existence since it has no mass, occupies no volume and is not involved in the flow of time.

 

and why is it there you believe that there is more to life than what we know of?

-because there is a special place for humans - we have a purpose - we are special

Vicegerency as the sole responsibility of humans. This is a necessary implication of envolution (progressive development of matter).

 

a

nd why do you think this holy-book is correct?

-because it is scripture that was handed down by the almighty to our lord and saviour jesus christ

Try googling on Keith L. Moore

 

and what makes you think that all this is true and that jesus ever existed?

-because it is! Jesus told us, it's there in the book

straw man huh?

[motherengine]

People who make statements like this give Christians a bad name.

 

Dont you think that a force as powerful as the Creator of the whole universe, would have better things do do than condemn people to Hell for merely not believing .

 

Of course, it may be a massive con trick on Gods behalf and the people who believe in this hateful doctrine are themselves the likely recipients of hell and brimstone.

 

Dont be so smug, you may have picked the wrong religeon, there's plenty to choose from.

 

actually hell in the bible is eternity spent absent of god's presence.

[Queso]

that's the problem. instead of picking a religion, some people forget there's a life without religion. it's in the air. :hyper:

[bumab]

It's not as simple as you think, my friend. I agree that there is more to life than this physical existence. Consciousness, and consequently free-will, does not seem to obey the fundamental forces of physics.

 

I agree- this definatly implys something else. Of course, you could always say that free will is an illusion, as many have. Is everyone willing to go that far? :hyper:

[motherengine]

that's the problem. instead of picking a religion, some people forget there's a life without religion. it's in the air. :Alien:

 

is it really?

[geko]

Also, to the sceptics and debunkers, personally i think it's healthy to realise that 'faith in an afterlife' or the 'existence of jesus' is what's known as a "core-belief". Rational argument has no impact on such a thing (just watch the response to my question... i doubt there will be one because unforunately i think it's not understood....... or maybe now ive said this there will be...).

 

and vice versa.

 

I actually dont understand this Tinny. Are you saying that not having faith in an after-life and not believing in the existence of jesus could also be labelled as a core belief? It's more of a lack of an opinion (or for some a stance), from lack of knowledge than a belief i would say.

 

 

I agree that there is more to life than this physical existence. Consciousness, and consequently free-will, does not seem to obey the fundamental forces of physics.

 

Not enough is known about consciousness to state this categorically. We may be making something out of nothing. Consciousness might just be an idea we've invented to describe our ability to react to information. No intermediary is necessarily needed, although it may exist. Withholding judgement and opinion would be the most rational stance at the moment i think.

 

 

Vicegerency as the sole responsibility of humans. This is a necessary implication of envolution (progressive development of matter).

 

Personally, i fail to see the link between being human, and having the responsibilty to off-load authority to another. In my humble opinion one certainly doesnt impy the other. I also fail (maybe it's just me :Alien: :confused: ), how evolution = vicegerency = progressive development of matter. Would you go as far as to say that the existence of a vicegerent is a necessity for the progression of homosapiens?

[Queso]

is it really?

aww come on. you and i both know it's not really in the air.

[Fishteacher73]

I actually dont understand this Tinny. Are you saying that not having faith in an after-life and not believing in the existence of jesus could also be labelled as a core belief? It's more of a lack of an opinion (or for some a stance), from lack of knowledge than a belief i would say.

 

I agree. I do not believe in Santa CLause, but my daily routine is not based around me not believing in Santa Clause.

But I perhaps am misreading, but it seems you imply that this lack of belief stems from a lack of knowledge. That seems a bit out of line. I have seen no evidence that supports the idea of a deity and plenty of evidence IMO that supports the lack of such an entity. This is not a lack of knowledge. It is an aplication of knowledge.

[geko]

...it seems you imply that this lack of belief stems from a lack of knowledge.

 

I was actually speaking directly about the after-life and jesus. As far as i know, no knowledge or evidence exists in either direction about an after-life.

 

As for whether jesus existed or not the only reference i know of is the bible itself or some info derived from some form of christianity. Whether this is called evidence i would say is speculative (it's certainly some kind of knowledge).

 

But I reject them pretty much on the grounds that they're unaccountable. I dont see it as the same type of knowledge as (say) the reality behind perception. I pretty much say i dont have any knowledge of jesus. The most rational stance when no knowledge is available is no opinion. That's how i think anyway.

 

...

 

But with the existence of a deity that you metnion i actually dont know. What im thinking is that maybe people see it differently. If i was asked if i believe in a deity i would say no....

 

[im having trouble thinking of why i would say no - been sitting here for about 15 mins now, even got myself a coffee :Alien: ].

 

...i have no idea, maybe i shouldnt have an opinion on this either. I see it as superfluous, but i dont know if this supports the lack of such a thing now.... need to think.

 

ps. by the way, what evidence do you think supports the lack of such a thing? just wondering

[Fishteacher73]

Not to get in a "is not/is so" argument, as you have stated we have yet to have definative evidence of either stance. I reach my conclustions through the many counter-examples against many of the religious tennets. I see the argument for evolution as very strong, evidence of the age of the Earth, fossils, etc. all seem to contradict what the "truth" is as posed by many religions. I think one can also look at how religions developed over time and conclude that our current systems is based off the same unknowns as the early panthiests that attributed inegestion to random gods. This follows as absurd, and the extrapolation is applied to the current systems.

 

Even outside of the pure question of whether or not there is any type of deity, the propagation of organized religions has been a tool for those that seek control and those that project their elitist ideals. Religion may not be the biggest opiate of the masses today, but it still has a reasonable pull (They elected Bush :) ).

[bumab]

I reach my conclustions through the many counter-examples against many of the religious tennets. I see the argument for evolution as very strong, evidence of the age of the Earth, fossils, etc. all seem to contradict what the "truth" is as posed by many religions.

 

If the religion is based on statements about the natural world, then I agree with you. If a religion depends on the age of the Earth, then it's obviously got some problems. But I would argue that most religions do not depend on such statements. Religions are a spiritual realm- we can prove Jesus existed (MANY lines of evidence, not just the Bible). We cannot prove he was God. that's a spiritual claim, and as such, it is silly for believers to extrapolate some physical dependency on that spiritual statement.

 

Evolution does not contradict the Bible, since Jewish histories were not written as literal accounts of the past, but rather stories to be interprited by the Rabbi's at the time. Saying it does simply dooms the religious crowd to constant backpeddling against science. Faith that depends on physical proof isn't really faith at all, I don't think.

 

I don't want to be attacking fellow believers (i kinda feel guilty :) ), but in this context, science is definatly right, and it's the religious folk that need to take a step back and think about what they believe and why.

[Fishteacher73]

Faith that depends on physical proof isn't really faith at all, I don't think.

 

If there is proof, than it is no longer faith. Do you have a faith that the Earth is round (ok, roundish)? No, we know that to be the case. Faith is only involved when there is not a clear ration conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.

 

Many aspects of modern religions are based on actual events (Not all by a long shot IMO). TO be partially based in fact is not to be true. The best lies are woven from the truth. And for most I feel that these misrepresentaion is not a willful act. They are just portraying the "truth" as they has felt or heard it expressed. But by the same token, it would be foolish to not understand that the intentional abuse of religion and manipulation of religion has occured for centuries to either maintain or shift the power stucture. So the system that we have now is a far cry from what it began as and to equate the two is like equating a limpet to a lemur.

[bumab]

Many aspects of modern religions are based on actual events (Not all by a long shot IMO). TO be partially based in fact is not to be true.

 

Actual events = events that really happened.

 

People have experiences of feeling God's presence all the time. People feel irrational love towards others just as much as they feel irrational hate. Are those actual events? I'm not going to pretend those constitute scientific proof, or scientific evidence. They don't. But they are actual events.

 

Historical events- religion is based on suprisingly few. Did God create the universe? In the sense that he would be the ultimate cause- matter of faith. If your answer is yes,He is, then evolution is the obvious vehicle.

 

And for most I feel that these misrepresentaion is not a willful act. They are just portraying the "truth" as they has felt or heard it expressed..

 

Very true, and something we should all remember when critizing people's beliefs.

 

But by the same token, it would be foolish to not understand that the intentional abuse of religion and manipulation of religion has occured for centuries to either maintain or shift the power stucture. So the system that we have now is a far cry from what it began as and to equate the two is like equating a limpet to a lemur.

 

Can't argue with that!

[TINNY]

Originally Posted by TINNY

Also, to the sceptics and debunkers, personally i think it's healthy to realise that 'faith in an afterlife' or the 'existence of jesus' is what's known as a "core-belief". Rational argument has no impact on such a thing (just watch the response to my question... i doubt there will be one because unforunately i think it's not understood....... or maybe now ive said this there will be...).

 

and vice versa.

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

I actually dont understand this Tinny. Are you saying that not having faith in an after-life and not believing in the existence of jesus could also be labelled as a core belief? It's more of a lack of an opinion (or for some a stance), from lack of knowledge than a belief i would say.

what i meant by "vice versa" is that believers also say the skeptics have a core belief where rational argument has no impact.

 

Originally Posted by TINNY

I agree that there is more to life than this physical existence. Consciousness, and consequently free-will, does not seem to obey the fundamental forces of physics.

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

Not enough is known about consciousness to state this categorically. We may be making something out of nothing. Consciousness might just be an idea we've invented to describe our ability to react to information. No intermediary is necessarily needed, although it may exist. Withholding judgement and opinion would be the most rational stance at the moment i think.

Yes, we don't know enough to explain consciousness. But that is based on the parameters of physics that we are utilizing now. A new physics to incorporate consciousness into the picture might be very radically different where the universe might not be the deterministic newtonian physics that we know of.

My personal belief is that there is a fundamental unified reality of this universe that can be seen from infinite perspectives. The quantum perspective is one, our normal perception is another.

Personally, i fail to see the link between being human, and having the responsibilty to off-load authority to another. In my humble opinion one certainly doesnt impy the other. I also fail (maybe it's just me :) :) ), how evolution = vicegerency = progressive development of matter. Would you go as far as to say that the existence of a vicegerent is a necessity for the progression of homosapiens?

You've probably misunderstood what i was referring to as the vicegerency. i explained it in another thread. never mind this for now. it is hard to re-explain since you didn't fully quote my post.