The Creator

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: galaxy

You guys want "facts," well I don't have any scientific proof that God exists...

Each person has to decide for themselves what their lives' work is worth. Some hold their lives to a very high ideal based on facts and evidence. Yes it requires additional efforts, it requires fighting the mindset passed through (European) heritage of antiquated superstions. And historically it has often required one to put their very life on the line in order to fight the ignorance of Religious superstition and authority. We have seen thru the list you yourself provided, that the only European "Scientists" that survived to be known, typically had to bow down to the gods of the authorities, or we would never have heard of their existence. They would just have been killed outright no matter how valuable their insights would have been for society.

 

Fortunately SECULAR powers have surfaced that have fought the religious erfforts to suppress knowledge under power of death that had existed since the Christian religion has come to power. That has allowed an incredible increase in knowledge. With each gain reducing the space various gods had always been used to explain. T^oday there are few gaps left to stuff a god beleif into. Though many try everything they can to keep some gap open to allow their obsequence to ignorance to be justified internally.

 

You however choose intentionally to sell your life out to something you readily admit you have no valid reason to accept. To each their own. It is just a shame that so many are wasting the only life we actually know we have by rejecting factual knowledge, instead you admit that "You guys want "facts," well I don't have any ..." to support the very basis for your life's philosophy.

 

That is your choice to make.

 

But then what do you expect when you come to a site that is based on SCIENCE? That we should all turn our back on facts and reason? But then we would NOT be a SCIENCE site.

 

We are always glad to have a new voice join us. Open discussion is a very exciting and interesting application of personal time. But we are here to LEARN, to KNOW. And that is ALWAYS based on FACTS.

All I have to do is look at nature, at the stars, at the universe ... at human life....

And what you find is NATURE. Anything else is made up and of no value other than as fairytale fun. It does not provide ANY value when it comes to understanding the universe we live in nor how to best live our actual lives.

You mentioned that you did not understand why any intelligent person would consider themselves Christian, and it appears that they do. In fact they did exist, and they still do. I am sure there are many scientist that share your believes, and that is perfectly fine with me.

Yes there are intellegent people that are followers of any number of religious superstition. However statistically, the better educated, the higher the IQ or the more highly regarded the Scientist (by their peers) the less apt they are to hold such beliefs.

I repeat I am not here to change anybody's point of view,

Well I am. I am here to change MY POV. I am here to find out where I am wrong and what I don't know. And then to gladly adjust my POV in order to reflect the most accurate and knowledgable philosophy I can. I have only one life to offer. The ONLY way a personal can provide the most positive benefits to soceity is by following that path. Even if it takes additional effort. I am willing to make that effort.

I am here to share opinions, without the necessity of getting defensive.

If by "without the necessity of getting defensive" you mean you are not interested in defending, validating, proving, ... your POV, why are you on a SCIENCE based site?

 

Seriously. What is the fire th

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rls

To rebut the issue of proof of scripture in secular records, one such instance is in reference to the biblical name of Nimrod in Genesis 11:1 thru 6.

We know for a fact that there are hooded capes that are colored red. We know for a fact that there are wolves and grandmothers. Thus based on your approach to logic, Little Red Riddinghood and thus Mother Goose fairytales are true!

 

Or perhaps this will help you understand how useless anecdotal evidence or coincidental conformations are when it comes to evaluating reality.

 

A math book is not accepted as factual/ correct because one page states 2+2=4 if it also states that 4+4=6 and 6+6=8.

 

To show that the bible does have some limited coincidence with historical reality does not prove thayt the bible is any more accurate than Mother Goose. And I am not aware of anyone that was killed by people that follow Mother Goose, unlike the millions that have been tortured and killed by followers of the bible.

 

This brings up an interesting (at least I find it so) problem. Just as you have done here, those wishing to grasp at any straw to pretend the bible is some perfect word of some mythical god, will always place the bible as subserviate to SECULAR sources. You take data from SECULAR sources and use IT as the REFERENCE to test the bible against. If the bible correlates correcty to the SECULAR source, then the bible can be accepted.

 

If the bible is the perfect word of an all powerful god, then IT would be the REFERENCE SOURCE and SECULAR sources would be tested against IT.

 

But that is NOT what you or others do.

 

You admit, even if only unintentionally, that SECULAR sources are THE point of reference, NOT the bible.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rls

I understand from reading another post that you claimed to be a Humanist!

 

Have you ever read the Humanist Manifesto 1 or 2? They are rather informative about the positions of secularist's and humanists.

Yes, I have copies of them all. As well as Humanist Manifesto 2000, The Affirmations of Humanism and Secular Humanist Declaration. I have been an Associate Member of the Council for Secular Humanism for many many years. In fact I have been President of a local FreeThought/ SH group for 7 years.

FYI humanism is considered by the courts as a religion, you can research the issue from these cases:

1. Torcaso v Watkins, case number 367us488

Before we saw the well parrotted LIE about Einstien's religious beleifs. Now we run into the old "Bald is a hair color" lie about Secular Humanism.

 

In the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote as a MINORITY opinion, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as "dicta," are written to provide factual background to the legal principles in a decision. These dicta never have the force of law. They are merely comments.

 

This same approach is used (LIES) in many such claims. Using comments used by the minority opinion or misrepresentations of the actual text or level of status to the text.

 

The claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was finally considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case; they refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.

 

If you want to see the humanist opinion of what is important in our schools and how they despise persons of faith check out "Three Cheers for our Secular State", The Humanist, March/April edition page 16.

The Humanist is published by the AHA. While it is a HUMANIST organization, it is NOT a SECULAR humanist org. In fact it is connected to theThe Religious Society of Friends/ Quakers. e.g. it offers "Secular Celebrants" for Marriages/ Funerals/ ... based on joining Friends. I know. I refused to go down that path when I found out. You will notice the "Happy Humanist" I use as my avitar is NOT the AHA's but the Council for Secular Humanism's.

 

Again, I find the AHA to be a good organization and have worked with them. But they are NOT a true SECULAR Humanist org.

 

Now what else can I straighten out for you?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rls

...all the people who claim to have no belief in a god claim to or appear to believe in some form of humanism,

It was on some thread here in which I went into great detail to explain why the concept of "belief" is not applicable to my way of developing my POV.

 

And to toss in "appear to" makes it too broad to serve any purpose.

There is one central theme to modern humanism and that is their belief in nothing supernatural.

Also wrong. There is "Religious Humanism". Interestingly you can even find a magazine titled "RELIGIOUS HUMANISM The Journal of the HUUmanists" published by the same group (AHA) that publishes "Humanist".

 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/hsfamily/rh/

 

Here is a quote that you often hear," Moreover there are some kinds of statements which are rejected even without being subjected to the usual tests..... Such treatment is due statements reporting happenings which do not conform to the laws of nature as established by scientific methods.

...It requires no justification where myths are involved. Their summary rejection is implied in the rule that no statement can be accepted unless it can be shown to rest upon trustworthy observation....

If anyone asserts them he must be regarded as ignorant, superstitious, the victim of hallucination, or some othber form of mental abberation.", <u>The Critical Method of Historical Research and Writing.</u>,author

Carey Hockett, page 61.

I believe this would be an accurate summation of the how uncle martin, freethinker, and others would respond to those who claim to believe in a Creator.

This is considered by some to be the responses of humanists.

When put in proper context, we can see why. We ahve yet to have a Christian or Beleiver of any stripe that does not admit at some point

Originally posted by: galaxy

You guys want "facts," well I don't have any scientific proof that God exists...

Irisheyes, our longest term member here has made this statement many times as well. And therefore YES, after millenia of this admission, we stop bothering with anything "where myths are involved".

 

Should, after thousands of years to the contrary, some Religionist actually find some FACTS to present, those FACTS will be approached the same as ANY facts those of us that base our POV on science and logic use.

 

And I am PROUD of it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

but before we read we must throw away everything we have heard of other people and come openminded and curious as to what this or that really is.

Actually this is the WRONG way to approach ANY subject. NOTHING is in and of itself complete. Anything, especially something like the bible, is best understood when one has a solid grasp of it's history and background. It is also obligatory to understand potential reality of the biblical stories to understand the ACTUAL history of the time. Lest one, ignorant of FACTUAL history, accept as fact the myths presented in the bible.

until a person subjects themselves first to the moment that they take that book into their hands and actually read with an open (young) mind that is searching for truth

A "searching for truth" never comes from a single, especially a single BIASED source like the bible. It is actually anthema to an open mind to REJECT other sources as you suggest. There is nothing MORE CLOSED MINDED that ignoring outside sources.

 

However I do understand why someone desperate to pretend the bible is factual, to reject the massive evidence to the contrary.

rather than knowledge,

Exactly. When an invented subjective "truth" (talk about a misnomer) is pursued rather than FACTUAL knowledge, the best approach is rejection of KNOWLEDGE and FACTS

they will consistenly search outside for reasurrance from others that only God can give in the heart, not the head.

When my optic nerve is connected to and evaluated by my HEART instead of my HEAD I will gladly agree.

I suggest reading the four major Gospels

And you will find them filled with errors and contradictions. Nothing is better in developing Atheism than a truly open minded evaluation of the bible.

and here is a question to ask yourself while reading, what is the point of reading an instruction manuel if not for following the instructions to gain the knowlege we seek

Well one very important reason would be to fact check the "instruction manual" prior to accepting it as a reference source. If regular errors and contradictions are uncovered, one can realize it is not valid as an "instruction manual".

[wisdumn]

thank you uncle martin for the welcome to the site,apologies if i'm not able to reply right away after a post i have very limited time at the computer. by the way my post was specifically intended for everyone on this link as to my personal views not necessarily in reply to a specific person, i noticed galaxy had started with their questions about God so i was somewhat answering them as well as posting my beliefs. now to answer your inquiry uncle martin about truth and knowledge. some truth is inside the heart(or soul) and not the head, knowledge is for the brain, knowledge can help in dealing with heart issues but some things in life can only be felt and not explained, therein some truth will be learned by many while other truths will only be known of a few.again i emphasize that some people only work in the brain (2+2=4) realm, some only work with the heart, both have positive and negative aspects but utilizing both has the better results. we have to except as people that we can not understand everything about the universe, we may be able to explain how the stars stay in the sky but no one< scientist,christian, or whatever can explain exactly how they came to be in the first place, i even believe that evolution MAY have it's part but i ultimately believe that it had a starting point and i don't think that one particle of matter just decide " hey! i'm going to evolve into something now " just like i don't believe Edison's light bulb would ever have just evolved from sand into glass into a piece of glass with an element inside of it, no- it took Edison( a creator or inventor) to create that light bulb. the sistine chapel didn't paint itself and Beethoven's fifth symphony wasn't comprised of his first 4 symphony's suddenly deciding to evolve into the fifth. all of these things have a common theme, a beginning, and those beginnings come from someone enacting them to be created. with that i have to run, everyone have a nice day and may you all become dumn enough to learn something. -wisdumn

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

by the way my post was specifically intended for everyone on this link as to my personal views not necessarily in reply to a specific person,

Glad to hear it. The best way to think about this place is a free for all. A place where each person has the same level of say (unless you violate the well posted guidelines, which are very flexible) and authority. Everyone chooses their own way of presenting their views. We can only hope there is the same level of acceptance for varying posting styles as there is to what is posted, as diverse in HOW as in WHAT.

i noticed galaxy had started with their questions about God so i was somewhat answering them as well as posting my beliefs.

That is always the best palce to start. But the next step should always be a critical evaluation of the ideas presented. Push them a litte to see if they can stand on their own two feet or if they fall over right away (Thud's 1st law of opposition).

now to answer your inquiry uncle martin about truth and knowledge. some truth is inside the heart(or soul) and not the head,

See now here is where we run into a communications difficulty. You are making specific assertions. The reality of such needs to be evaluated before we can proceed. You want to assert that there is something you refer to as "truth" which can be stored in either a well defined physical body part, the "heart", or in some other place you refer to as the "soul".

 

In an intellectually open discussion we agree on what terms are used to mean what things. In order to do so, we have to make sure we ARE in agrreement on terms being used. AND that any such assertions are valid. i.e. if you want to use something to explain something else, we need to agree on what that thing is and agree that it actually exists. If it can not be shown to actually exist, it can not be expected to be accepted as fact.

 

Thus we need to find oout if you are using "some truth is inside the heart" as a metaphore for what is actually physical synapse connections in the brain, or are you claiming there actually is some other form of information storage in the humman body?

 

Further, when you state "heart(or soul)" are you asserting that the term "soul" is just another way of saying "heart"? Or are you claiming the existence of some other object? If so, then provide factual proof of what this object is. Or there is no way we can discuss it. It has no value to the discussion.

 

Again, this is a SCIENCE site. The specific intent of this site as listed in the FAQ is

 

"How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

1. If you make strange claims, please provide proof."

some things in life can only be felt and not explained,

give a specific example.

and those beginnings come from someone enacting them to be created.

And what is your solution? INVENTING an ARBITRARY outside agent that violates this universal requirement? Or was your "creator" also created by an even greater creator? And so on and so on.

 

Your personal desire to allow an ARBITRARY line to be drawn as to what point no longer requires an intellectual entity being created does not in any way validate the idea. And Ockham's Razor shows that the concept is inferior to a completely natural explanation for nature.

[Freethinker]

Ya double posts!

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Push them a litte to see if they can stand on their own two feet or if they fall over right away (Thud's 1st law of opposition).

 

ROFLMAO!!!

 

Literally!!! Thanks, after a rough Monday , I needed that.

[Freethinker]

Thud's 1st law of opposition is, "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." (Firesign Theater)

[galaxy]

For the record, I never claimed here, or anywhere to be a Humanist, please read all "MY" post carefully before making such statements.

[wisdumn]

hi freethinker, glad to receive your comments and incite, i agree that people should openly express their ideas and should also be welcome to others as henceforth a discussion is useless and therein incites an argument as opposed to people sharing their views. i would like to ask you a question, do you believe that everything has to or for that matter can be proven?...if so let's put an analogy up. if i said that i had a dream last night about oh i don't know,aliens, and i said that in my dream the aliens came and took my body and did experimentation on me and when i awoke i realized it had all really happened and afterwords i told this dream to you. now can i prove to you that this dream occured or that i was really taken away by aliens or.. can you prove that i didn't have this dream or that i wasn't really taken by aliens. my stance is regardless of whether or not it can be scientifically proven, some things are beyond human perception or Human science and just are, not everything is 2+2. the heart i was referring to is the soul, just using another term for it, by the way freethinker, i was wondering if you had a chance to read my first post on page 3, if not i hope you will, it more explains my initial views in which uncle martin first responded to. sorry if i haven't answered all of your questions in full yet but i can't remember each one, refresh me and like i said, if it takes me a few to respond, apologies, just really busy but so far, am excited to meet people who are at least doing what many refuse to try, thinking. that is what our heads are for and i'm glad to see this type of discussion, most people cannot discuss these type of issues without gettin' their feet trampled. anyway, talk asap and am interested in all of your responses. good day to everyone and let's all become a little dumn today so we can learn something for tomorrow. -wisdumn

[galaxy]

Freethinker, you mentioned several times that this is a "SCIENCE" site, implying perhaps that this is not the right place for me. Well, if that was not your intention, I apologize for the misunderstanding. If it was, I will tell you why I'm on a "SCIENCE" site. I am on a science site because I am an inquisitive person, I like knowing about different pov, and I like sharing my ideas... I am in a SCIENCE site because fortunately we still live in a free country, and I can do so. We live in a free country and we can decide to be Christians or atheist, Muslims or Jews. To be democrats or republicans, socialists or communists. As a new Yorker, I can appreciate differences. I think variety is what spices this melting pot we call New York ... the most exciting city in the world. I understand we share different POV regarding Christianity. I accept and respect your opinion.I am not here trying to turn you or anybody into a Christian, that is something very personal that comes from the heart. That is something you have to seek, if someday you CHOSE to believe. One thing I do expect is to be treated with respect and equality. I joined this group because I found it interesting, in fact I found many of your comments very interesting. I will remain in this group and I will remain to believe in Christ. The day you stop hearing from me, it's probably because my schedule is very hectic. It is not because it is a "SCIENCE" site, and I feel intimidated by it. I will keep posting. If you find my views offensive, then just don't read my replies.

[galaxy]

WELCOME WISDUMN!!!!!

[Uncle Martin]

Galaxy,

I appreciate your enthusiasm in regards to "a free country", but try to remember that this forum is http://www........not all of our friends here have the luxury of being able to make that statement. American arrogance is already a real problem, let us try to not add to it. I am a U S citizen, so I do have the right to mention this.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

hi freethinker, glad to receive your comments and incite,

Hi back at ya! :-)

 

Though I am not sure about what you mean by "incite"?

i agree that people should openly express their ideas and should also be welcome to others as henceforth a discussion is useless and therein incites an argument as opposed to people sharing their views. i would like to ask you a question,

I'm glad to hear that you are interested in an open discussion. That is what I am here for. And I'd love to delve into any number of potential topics. But if we are going to ahve any srt of good open discussion, we need to do it right. I will be happy to answer your questions, but I had asked you one and we need to find out what your answer is because it is sure to come up again. So as soon as you answer the question that is already out there, we can move on.

 

Let me help out by reposting it here for you.

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: wisdumn

now to answer your inquiry uncle martin about truth and knowledge. some truth is inside the heart(or soul) and not the head,

 

See now here is where we run into a communications difficulty. You are making specific assertions. The reality of such needs to be evaluated before we can proceed. You want to assert that there is something you refer to as "truth" which can be stored in either a well defined physical body part, the "heart", or in some other place you refer to as the "soul".

 

In an intellectually open discussion we agree on what terms are used to mean what things. In order to do so, we have to make sure we ARE in agrreement on terms being used. AND that any such assertions are valid. i.e. if you want to use something to explain something else, we need to agree on what that thing is and agree that it actually exists. If it can not be shown to actually exist, it can not be expected to be accepted as fact.

 

Thus we need to find oout if you are using "some truth is inside the heart" as a metaphore for what is actually physical synapse connections in the brain, or are you claiming there actually is some other form of information storage in the humman body?

 

Further, when you state "heart(or soul)" are you asserting that the term "soul" is just another way of saying "heart"? Or are you claiming the existence of some other object? If so, then provide factual proof of what this object is. Or there is no way we can discuss it. It has no value to the discussion.

So to summarize,

 

1) is "some truth is inside the heart"a metaphore for what is actually physical synapse connections in the brain?

 

2) when you state "heart(or soul)" are you asserting that the term "soul" is just another way of saying "heart"? Or are you claiming the existence of some other object?

 

Thanks, we can all learn from your answers.

[galaxy]

My intentions were not to sound arrogant, but to prove my point. However, I do see were you are coming from Uncle Martin, and I truly apologize if I offended anybody.