Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

[Mr. K6]

I'm glad you're not my doctor.
I'm more than happy to least my point rest on my previous substantive post since you've insisted on reading it out of context.

Of course, now because I've obviously shown your errors I'm "reading it out of context." Like I said, people don't like having this conversation because it wrecks that inner emotional crutch and forces them to self-actualize, it's not any easy exercise. Anyway, do something about that erroneous custom title of yours in the meantime.

 

[Tawnos]

AH. But what YOU are talking about is testing the value of the religious institutions of man. That is different than (and you get close to this distinction) the existence of a god, an afterlife, the salvation from sin etc.

How do you even show that "sin" exists and is something you need to be saved from? Is that one of your basic tenets of faith?

And, if you are claiming that "oh, you're talking about religion, I'm talking about spirituality", how do YOU personally define "salvation"? What does one need to do/believe/ask for/etc. If you think prayer has efficacy in that situation, what are your more general beliefs regarding its ability to accomplish anything?

The fact is, if the existence of god versus no god is indistinguishable to us, it seems silly to posit one exists. By claiming NOMA, you make that silliness a core tenet of belief.

 

[Modred189]

Of course, now because I've obviously shown your errors I'm "reading it out of context." Like I said, people don't like having this conversation because it wrecks that inner emotional crutch and forces them to self-actualize, it's not any easy exercise. Anyway, do something about that erroneous custom title of yours in the meantime.

You never did show a single way that the existence of a deputy can be tested. Until you do, my point stands: science and religion age not antithetical, they are orthogonal.

 

[Modred189]

*deity
Sorry, doing this on a smartphone.

How do you even show that "sin" exists and is something you need to be saved from? Is that one of your basic tenets of faith?

You don't "show" it, you believe it.
Yes.

And, if you are claiming that "oh, you're talking about religion, I'm talking about spirituality", how do YOU personally define "salvation"?

Salvation from " hell, " defined not as a place of fire etc, but as an eternity separated from God.

What does one need to do/believe/ask for/etc. If you think prayer has efficacy in that situation, what are your more general beliefs regarding its ability to accomplish anything?

I think prayer is more self cathartic than anything. We're not wishing away war or disease or bad people. It doesn't DO anything.

The fact is, if the existence of god versus no god is indistinguishable to us...

That is the question isn't it? But if there were proud, then it wouldn't be faith, and it wouldn't be out side the scope of science and this conversation would be moot.

 

[Modred189]

Again, sorry; proud=proof.
The laptop's in the shop.

 

[evilsofa]

Please, show me how we can apply science to the existence of a deity. Some way to generate repeated, controllable data, experimental circumstances, and even some nice, neat statistics we can run.

Does the recent proposal for examining cosmic rays for certain anomalies to test for whether the universe is a simulation qualify?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

 

[Modred189]

Does the recent proposal for examining cosmic rays for certain anomalies to test for whether the universe is a simulation qualify?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

I'll take it!
But it won't work. Any series of beings capable of such a simulation would build in failsafes that would falsify the returned data. To avoid the observer effect and all.

 

[Tawnos]

*deity
Sorry, doing this on a smartphone.

You don't "show" it, you believe it.
Yes.

So do you have any care whether others believe as you do, or is it entirely a private matter? I care to find the truth among competing claims, hence my questions and investigation into belief systems, but what drives you?

Salvation from " hell, " defined not as a place of fire etc, but as an eternity separated from God.

To be honest, in every iteration of god I've ever heard described, an eternity separated from a being that has had a non measurable impact on my life doesn't even frighten me. In fact, based on the descriptions most (all?) belief systems ascribe to their god or gods, that sounds better to me than to be in the presence of such a being.

I think prayer is more self cathartic than anything. We're not wishing away war or disease or bad people. It doesn't DO anything.

Amen to that

That is the question isn't it? But if there were proof (fixed based on followup comment), then it wouldn't be faith, and it wouldn't be out side the scope of science and this conversation would be moot.

Every christian I know claims their god is loving. They also claim it is all powerful. They also claim the worst thing ever is to be separated from that being for eternity. Yet such a being doesn't reveal itself to those of us who don't believe in it, or those who believe in another god. Why is that? Does your god want people to be separated from it forever?

 

[QwertyJuan]

Every christian I know claims their god is loving. They also claim it is all powerful. They also claim the worst thing ever is to be separated from that being for eternity. Yet such a being doesn't reveal itself to those of us who don't believe in it, or those who believe in another god. Why is that? Does your god want people to be separated from it forever?

Why would he be interested in YOU, when you have shown you have no interest in Him. I would guess it's a two-way street?

 

[mope54]

Every christian I know claims their god is loving. They also claim it is all powerful. They also claim the worst thing ever is to be separated from that being for eternity. Yet such a being doesn't reveal itself to those of us who don't believe in it, or those who believe in another god. Why is that? Does your god want people to be separated from it forever?

things would make more sense if modern Christians adhered to the early Church's position in regards to predestination. They don't, though, so much of what follows starts to unravel fairly quickly.

 

[ManofGod]

Of course, now because I've obviously shown your errors I'm "reading it out of context." Like I said, people don't like having this conversation because it wrecks that inner emotional crutch and forces them to self-actualize, it's not any easy exercise. Anyway, do something about that erroneous custom title of yours in the meantime.

I have to say that I am glad you are not my doctor either. You seem to think that if something does not line up with your thinking, it must be completely and totally wrong. So, if being an MD is so great, who come I have an issue for over 9 years that you geniuses cannot figure out? (In fact, you all seem to think you have it figured out but you all do not and keep those blinders on when doing so.)

Having a degree does not make you right. More likely, just better indoctrinated in the way man thinks he knows stuff. Good luck with eternity, you are going to need it.

 

[Mr. K6]

You never did show a single way that the existence of a deputy can be tested. Until you do, my point stands: science and religion age not antithetical, they are orthogonal.

You can try to get absurd as you like to hide from the evidence, facts, and truth of science, it doesn't really change what I've said. Again, show me what you believe is not complete bullshit. I'll wait as well. Science will always be at the limits of human understanding, hell that's part of its definition. Therefore, it's always possible to create bullshit beyond that. You were the same person that said God was on the moon until we went there and found nothing. You see how silly you seem to the rational adult? Creating a figment of your imagination to comfort you and moving the goalposts all the time so that you don't have to self-actualize is charmingly childish, but any rational adult reading this thread can plainly see you have a problem.

 

[Mr. K6]

I have to say that I am glad you are not my doctor either. You seem to think that if something does not line up with your thinking, it must be completely and totally wrong. So, if being an MD is so great, who come I have an issue for over 9 years that you geniuses cannot figure out? (In fact, you all seem to think you have it figured out but you all do not and keep those blinders on when doing so.)

I've never discussed my beliefs with a patient; not only is it not part of my job it is also unprofessional. Again, just shows how ignorant you are of the professional world. Also, your "god" gave you your ailment, how come you're upset that science hasn't cured you yet you don't blame the god that gave it to you? Stockholm syndrome at its best there. The thing is science saves and cures infinitely more than any god ever has (that's what you get when you divide by zero, simple math!), I will continue to put my efforts and focus where I know I can make a difference, save lives, and change the world. We can only work as fast as we can, with the people and resources we have. You want more? Donate or get a degree and jump in. Like I said earlier, praying is the best way to do nothing and still try to take credit for helping.

Having a degree does not make you right. More likely, just better indoctrinated in the way man thinks he knows stuff. Good luck with eternity, you are going to need it.

That's kind of the creationist way of thinking, right? Too stupid to cut it in the real world so they make up pseudoscience to feel better about themselves. Ironically this phenomenon has been studied in psychology; it's the same concept as the middle-aged housewife who takes up homeopathy and rejects medicine. She doesn't want to put in the effort to understand the actual science behind medicine, so gets fast-talked by a snakeoil salesman and empowered that she's part of an "inside group." It's a common psyche template that's exploited by salesmen and religious figures alike (which you could argue are the best salesmen in the world).

 

[ManofGod]

I've never discussed my beliefs with a patient; not only is it not part of my job it is also unprofessional. Again, just shows how ignorant you are of the professional world. Also, your "god" gave you your ailment, how come you're upset that science hasn't cured you yet you don't blame the god that gave it to you? Stockholm syndrome at its best there. The thing is science saves and cures infinitely more than any god ever has (that's what you get when you divide by zero, simple math!), I will continue to put my efforts and focus where I know I can make a difference, save lives, and change the world. We can only work as fast as we can, with the people and resources we have. You want more? Donate or get a degree and jump in. Like I said earlier, praying is the best way to do nothing and still try to take credit for helping.
That's kind of the creationist way of thinking, right? Too stupid to cut it in the real world so they make up pseudoscience to feel better about themselves. Ironically this phenomenon has been studied in psychology; it's the same concept as the middle-aged housewife who takes up homeopathy and rejects medicine. She doesn't want to put in the effort to understand the actual science behind medicine, so gets fast-talked by a snakeoil salesman and empowered that she's part of an "inside group." It's a common psyche template that's exploited by salesmen and religious figures alike (which you could argue are the best salesmen in the world).

You mean you do not stay in lock step with the rest of the medical community? Do you actually listen to your patients and think outside the little box that most doctors and medical professionals have been placed into and are unwilling to think outside of? (Heck, I have found doctors actually get upset when you try to force them to think outside of their little box.)

By the way, that paragraph above is a serious question and statement. However, God did not give me this ailment and as far as why he chooses not to heal me of it, I do not know.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I disagree.
Again, as I've stated elsewhere, I am a christian who has a Masters degree in Evolutionary sociobiology. The thing is, too many people associate 'religion,' which is a man-made organization of men, with a specific belief structure. Only some religions enforce a literalistic interpretation of given holy texts, a minority at that.

It doesn't matter if the interpretation is literal or not. Either way its a belief in an idea which is not backed by evidence. Ideas like these:

...living in such a way as to accept the story and lessons of the bible (man was given a chance, f'd it up (eden and the apple etc), was damned but given a second chance (the old testament), screwed that up, and had to be saved (the coming and sacrifice of Jesus), and is now left to but repent and be saved (salvation is now a matter of belief and not works).

NONE of that has anything to do with science. Period. They are completely orthogonal. Science, as we know it today, is a process for explaining our world. It is limited to what we can observe with the tools we have. No tool can currently test for (and if you think about it, never will) the existence of any of that.

What science cannot test for, it can make NO statements about. Period. If there is no evidence for, nor against, then science must stay silent.

If you have an idea which is untestable then there's no reason to believe in it, period.

As I believe we've discussed previously, you could use your line of thinking to defend any untestable idea. It doesn't matter whether it's a god or Santa Claus or invisible dragons. Just because I can imagine something that is untestable doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe it, an untestable idea is as useless for understanding reality as no idea at all.

Science is all about categorizing ideas by testing them against observations. All ideas, anything you can imagine, exist within the realm of science. If an idea is untestable it remains in the untestable pool of ideas. If you can come up with an experiment to test an idea it becomes a hypothesis, and if a hypothesis holds up to scrutiny it becomes a theory. Without a filter to divide the untestable from the testable you might as well not even bother with science in the first place. I can imagine an infinite number of untestable ideas. I can certainly imagine the idea of a god or an afterlife, but as soon as you start claiming to know there is a god/afterlife or talking in terms of repentance and salvation you have broken the basic rules of science.

This is important. The reason science is so effective is that it has this error correcting mechanism. We are very good at fooling ourselves into believing what we want to believe.

 

[Mr. K6]

You mean you do not stay in lock step with the rest of the medical community? Do you actually listen to your patients and think outside the little box that most doctors and medical professionals have been placed into and are unwilling to think outside of? (Heck, I have found doctors actually get upset when you try to force them to think outside of their little box.)

I can't speak for others but that's not how I work and it certainly wasn't how things worked where I trained. You also have to understand that physicians have strict regulations for where, how, why, and if they can do something in their practice (google any of these: meaningful use, best-of-care, gold standard). We have to, physicians make life-or-death decisions everyday and there has to be some kind of standardization. That said, you'll have to provide a more specific example of what "outside-the-box" means and maybe I can give you some information on why or why not it did not work.

By the way, that paragraph above is a serious question and statement. However, God did not give me this ailment and as far as why he chooses not to heal me of it, I do not know.

Again though, why do you blame science for not curing you, but not your God for A) giving it to you and B) not curing it? Again, it's a well-studied phenomenon. Look at some domestic abuse victims' "he hits me because he loves me" mentality. It's absurd to the outsider is what I'm saying.

If you have an idea which is untestable then there's no reason to believe in it, period.

As I believe we've discussed previously, you could use your line of thinking to defend any untestable idea. It doesn't matter whether it's a god or Santa Claus or invisible dragons. Just because I can imagine something that is untestable doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe it, an untestable idea is as useless for understanding reality as no idea at all.

Science is all about categorizing ideas by testing them against observations. All ideas, anything you can imagine, exist within the realm of science. If an idea is untestable it remains in the untestable pool of ideas. If you can come up with an experiment to test an idea it becomes a hypothesis, and if a hypothesis holds up to scrutiny it becomes a theory. Without a filter to divide the untestable from the testable you might as well not even bother with science in the first place. I can imagine an infinite number of untestable ideas. I can certainly imagine the idea of a god or an afterlife, but as soon as you start claiming to know there is a god/afterlife or talking in terms of repentance and salvation you have broken the basic rules of science.

This is important. The reason science is so effective is that it has this error correcting mechanism. We are very good at fooling ourselves into believing what we want to believe.

Well said, great points all around.

 

[Modred189]

You can try to get absurd as you like to hide from the evidence, facts, and truth of science, it doesn't really change what I've said. Again, show me what you believe is not complete bullshit.

I'm fully willing to admit that I can't. It's what I believe and I don't particularly care if no one else feels the same way. The fact that many do is an ancillary comfort, but nothing more.

You were the same person that said God was on the moon until we went there and found nothing.

Sorry, man, that wasn't me. You've got me confused with someone else.

You're also haveing a different conversation. Review my posts. My ONLY point is that science and belief in a deity are orthogonal concepts. Science is based upon data and what is testable. Spirituality (to separate the conversation from the tenets of religious sects) is based upon the complete opposite. And that for which there is NO data, and NO observable phenomena IS NOT SCIENCE. That is why religion and creationism do not belong in the science classroom. You might as well teach poetry in the science classroom for all it has in common.

But again, since you cannot test the existence of a deity, science is left with one and only one statement (and the most important statement a scientist can ever make):
"I don't know."

 

[Modred189]

If you have an idea which is untestable then there's no reason to believe in it, period.

As I believe we've discussed previously, you could use your line of thinking to defend any untestable idea. It doesn't matter whether it's a god or Santa Claus or invisible dragons. Just because I can imagine something that is untestable doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe it, an untestable idea is as useless for understanding reality as no idea at all.

I do remember this line of conversation, and to fast forward to the end, my point was that faith is not based in reason, since reason would require evidence, and as has been said before, there is none.
At the end of the day, the whole POINT of faith is the absence of evidence. Faith is different from knowing. If we had evidence, there would be no faith, since we would know.

And I think there might be a mistake of application here. You imply that religion might be used as an understanding of reality. I'd argue otherwise. While some extremist/literalist groups might apply it that way, the majority would say that that it provides an explanation for what happens outside of our reality. Outside of the bounds of birth and death. Santa Clause, Purple People Eaters, Flying Spaghetti Monsters in the sky, are all common refrains from those who kind of miss the point. Those are all physical manifestations in our reality, with (theoretically) testable characteristics. As far as I am aware, no Abrahamic religion (nor most multi-theistic religions around today) offers up any such physical manifestations of God in our world today (again, with the exception of fringe literalist or exceptional groups). So such a comparison is not correct.

Of course the same argument might be made analogous to the modern application of a God: that is a Santa Clause, Purple People Eaters, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc is waiting for us when we die. But the great thing about faith is that I get to choose what I believe.

Is it reasonable? Is it rational?
Of course not. That's the point.

 

[Mr. K6]

I'm fully willing to admit that I can't. It's what I believe and I don't particularly care if no one else feels the same way. The fact that many do is an ancillary comfort, but nothing more.

Fine by me, believe whatever you like, I won't argue against that.

Sorry, man, that wasn't me. You've got me confused with someone else.

You're also haveing a different conversation. Review my posts. My ONLY point is that science and belief in a deity are orthogonal concepts. Science is based upon data and what is testable. Spirituality (to separate the conversation from the tenets of religious sects) is based upon the complete opposite. And that for which there is NO data, and NO observable phenomena IS NOT SCIENCE. That is why religion and creationism do not belong in the science classroom. You might as well teach poetry in the science classroom for all it has in common.

But again, since you cannot test the existence of a deity, science is left with one and only one statement (and the most important statement a scientist can ever make):
"I don't know."

I agree, religion is not science. Beyond that, as I stated earlier, it's all what you want to believe, which should be up to each individual. I think that as long as people are well aware that creationism and its ilk are pseudoscience and unfounded, whatever way they want to take their spirituality is up to them.

 

[Modred189]

I agree, religion is not science. Beyond that, as I stated earlier, it's all what you want to believe, which should be up to each individual. I think that as long as people are well aware that creationism and its ilk are pseudoscience and unfounded, whatever way they want to take their spirituality is up to them.

I'm glad we can agree on all that.
Personally, i wouldn't even grace religion with the word "pseudoscience" since it implies that it shares some things with science, or applies similar rigor. I think it provides too much credence to people like Ken Hamm, who just kind of make things up as they go, with no consistency or respect for what IS science.
But that's just me.

 

[ManofGod]

I can't speak for others but that's not how I work and it certainly wasn't how things worked where I trained. You also have to understand that physicians have strict regulations for where, how, why, and if they can do something in their practice (google any of these: meaningful use, best-of-care, gold standard). We have to, physicians make life-or-death decisions everyday and there has to be some kind of standardization. That said, you'll have to provide a more specific example of what "outside-the-box" means and maybe I can give you some information on why or why not it did not work.


Again though, why do you blame science for not curing you, but not your God for A) giving it to you and B) not curing it? Again, it's a well-studied phenomenon. Look at some domestic abuse victims' "he hits me because he loves me" mentality. It's absurd to the outsider is what I'm saying.


Well said, great points all around.

I do not blame science or for that matter, I do not blame anyone per se. However, after 9 years and the doctors basically saying the same thing over and over and over without listening to my actual symptoms or trying to truly work at finding a cure, I do blame doctors for not putting in the effort that is required to think outside the box.

I am not a cattle and do not appreciate being treated as such. My illness will require a doctor to actually think through something that is not your normal, everyday average illness. If someone is not able or unwilling to take things further, either send me to someone who is or get a new job. (Not directed at you, just that I find doctors in general are not all they are cracked up to be. My general practitioner, Physical Therapist and back doctor are the exceptions to the rule for me.)

Look, if someone brought the computer to me, I told them I would fix it, did not, did not listen to the symptoms and generally shrugged them off well still charging them, I would not have a job for long. However, quite a few doctors do that anyways and still stay employed.

 

[Mr. K6]

I do not blame science or for that matter, I do not blame anyone per se. However, after 9 years and the doctors basically saying the same thing over and over and over without listening to my actual symptoms or trying to truly work at finding a cure, I do blame doctors for not putting in the effort that is required to think outside the box.

I am not a cattle and do not appreciate being treated as such. My illness will require a doctor to actually think through something that is not your normal, everyday average illness. If someone is not able or unwilling to take things further, either send me to someone who is or get a new job. (Not directed at you, just that I find doctors in general are not all they are cracked up to be. My general practitioner, Physical Therapist and back doctor are the exceptions to the rule for me.)

Look, if someone brought the computer to me, I told them I would fix it, did not, did not listen to the symptoms and generally shrugged them off well still charging them, I would not have a job for long. However, quite a few doctors do that anyways and still stay employed.

I don't want to leave your comments unanswered but I do think this strays too far from the topic at hand. In short, there are shoddy practitioners of every profession; I'm sure it annoys you when someone says "computer repairmen are all crooks, they just take your money, put more viruses on your computer so you'll come back, and don't fix a damn thing." I agree that if a healthcare professional is not addressing your problems in a way you feel is satisfactory, you should seek care elsewhere. The other side to that is some medical problems don't have decent cures/fixes at the moment, be it beyond our current capabilities or cost prohibitive. Still further, there are fixes that some people don't want to hear, be it surgery, mental health (consider somatization disorders), or simply losing weight. There are volumes and volumes written about all of this in medical journals and its a cornerstone of practice, but that's all for another discussion/thread.

 

[Draxanoth]

Again, read the last paragraph about how people get upset when you question their core beliefs and show it has no bearing in reality, as you're being emotional and not rational. We don't concretely know a lot about our world, but believing in something just to "believe" is borderline psychotic and honestly a poor mental health state.

Oh please, you're throwing out personal attacks because you're full of shit. Plenty of beliefs are based on experience and investigation, and whether they are wrong or not has never been proven. You're looking at a single book, proclaiming it false, and applying that logic to all spirituality.

The fact that you would find one religion false and apply it to all shows how little you've actually bothered to investigate past your own core beliefs, and a very shallow commitment to scientific method.

FYI, science tests all possibilities, not just picks one it can prove false and then pretends there are no alternatives.

 

[Disposed]

Oh please, you're throwing out personal attacks because you're full of shit. Plenty of beliefs are based on experience and investigation, and whether they are wrong or not has never been proven. You're looking at a single book, proclaiming it false, and applying that logic to all spirituality.

The fact that you would find one religion false and apply it to all shows how little you've actually bothered to investigate past your own core beliefs, and a very shallow commitment to scientific method.

FYI, science tests all possibilities, not just picks one it can prove false and then pretends there are no alternatives.

You don't need to read every fairy tale to determine they are all fiction.

 

[Mr. K6]

Oh please, you're throwing out personal attacks because you're full of shit. Plenty of beliefs are based on experience and investigation, and whether they are wrong or not has never been proven. You're looking at a single book, proclaiming it false, and applying that logic to all spirituality.

The fact that you would find one religion false and apply it to all shows how little you've actually bothered to investigate past your own core beliefs, and a very shallow commitment to scientific method.

FYI, science tests all possibilities, not just picks one it can prove false and then pretends there are no alternatives.

But again you're being emotional and not rational, so ironically in your attempt to rebut my argument you just proved it. Moving beyond that charming tidbit, how do you know? Did you ask me about what I've studied or what I believe? I plainly said that people don't like discussing their core beliefs because it forces them to self-actualize, which can be uncomfortable. I never attributed one book to all beliefs, that's what you assumed (again reinforcing what I said about lack of rationality, emotional outbursts, weighing in on your own figment of your own imagination, etc.). You're taking a general statement as a personal attack, but since you think it applies to you, why DO you believe in bullshit just to believe in it? Better yet, provide a concrete example of "beliefs are based on experience and investigation, and whether they are wrong or not has never been proven."

 

[DeathFromBelow]

At the end of the day, the whole POINT of faith is the absence of evidence. Faith is different from knowing. If we had evidence, there would be no faith, since we would know.

Ok, so what good is pretending to know something?

And I think there might be a mistake of application here. You imply that religion might be used as an understanding of reality. I'd argue otherwise. While some extremist/literalist groups might apply it that way, the majority would say that that it provides an explanation for what happens outside of our reality. Outside of the bounds of birth and death.

This is meaningless. What do you mean by 'outside of our reality?' What evidence do you have that there are things 'outside of our reality?' If these things are hidden in such a way that we can't deduce them through observation and experiment how is 'believing' in them in any way useful?

Santa Clause, Purple People Eaters, Flying Spaghetti Monsters in the sky, are all common refrains from those who kind of miss the point. Those are all physical manifestations in our reality, with (theoretically) testable characteristics.

No, they are all examples of supernatural beings with magical powers and thus are untestable. I mean, really, how is the Flying Spaghetti Monster more testable than any other god?

Beyond that, if something doesn't exist there isn't going to be any evidence for or against it's existence. That's the point of these examples. I can imagine an enormous number of untestable things. In order to actually figure out which of these ideas are real we must not believe in ideas unless we have evidence to support them.

As far as I am aware, no Abrahamic religion (nor most multi-theistic religions around today) offers up any such physical manifestations of God in our world today (again, with the exception of fringe literalist or exceptional groups). So such a comparison is not correct.

Belief that a god intervenes in the world in various ways is quite common here in Oklahoma. Natural selection certainly does seem to favor religions that avoid making easily testable claims like specific dates for the end of the world. God is just like Santa Claus, he supposedly does all sorts of wonderful things, you just can't see it because he works in mysterious ways.

It's interesting that the number of reported miracles has dropped precipitously since the invention of cameras.

But the great thing about faith is that I get to choose what I believe.

Is it reasonable? Is it rational?
Of course not. That's the point.

That's exactly the problem.

Magical thinking been used since antiquity to justify slavery, war, and genocide. It's why only a few hundred years ago Bruno was burned alive for defying Catholic doctrine. It's why in the year 2014 there are still parts of the world where little girls have their genitals mutilated and women are effectively kept out of sight in bags.

If you want to know the real answers to meaningful questions about the world we actually live in then you can't believe in whatever you want. You have to test all ideas and throw out the ones that don't correspond with reality. To do otherwise is madness.

 

[Tawnos]

Why would he be interested in YOU, when you have shown you have no interest in Him. I would guess it's a two-way street?

Two answers, either of which should suffice.

When I still believed but was having doubts, I prayed a lot, sought god, etc. Nothing was revealed. Thus, I did show interest, but apparently a two way street wasn't enough.

Alternatively, if the god doesn't want people to suffer, knows that being without it causes suffering, and has the power to reveal itself to people, then it should do so. Else one of those criteria don't make sense.

 

[m33pm33p]

SNIP
It's interesting that the number of reported miracles has dropped precipitously since the invention of cameras.
.

Actually...I think someone already answered that..or maybe I read it on a google search. Something to the effect that after Jesus' time, no one was allowed to perform miracles any more because what needed to be proven, had been proven during his life and that miracles were not a way for Jesus to help other but a way for Jesus to prove the power of God...


Something like this...

The purpose of miracles was to authenticate the performer of the miracles. Acts 2:22 declares, “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” The same is said of the apostles, “The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance” (2 Corinthians 12:12).

Note: This is not my belief and I am a pretty "devout" Agnostic but I do like to attempt and not be ignorant of any side and this was an explanation I read in a few different places online while doing "research".

 

[mope54]

That's exactly the problem.

Magical thinking been used since antiquity to justify slavery, war, and genocide. It's why only a few hundred years ago Bruno was burned alive for defying Catholic doctrine. It's why in the year 2014 there are still parts of the world where little girls have their genitals mutilated and women are effectively kept out of sight in bags.

If you want to know the real answers to meaningful questions about the world we actually live in then you can't believe in whatever you want. You have to test all ideas and throw out the ones that don't correspond with reality. To do otherwise is madness.

Unfortunately for your position, religion has also been used to abolish slavery, resist war, and condemn genocide. It's also been the lynchpin for various rights of women around the globe...including a fairly progressive position on women in society during the early Church's growth.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the globe's population adheres to some iteration of an organized religion. Adherents in this thread certainly subscribe to some mainstream variant of one and suggesting that people are simply believing whatever they want willy-nilly is giving short thrift to the power of global thought communities.

The social construction of reality is a powerful factor in how we understand our environment and make sense of it. The Thomas Theorem, from sociologist William Thomas, states, "that which is perceived to be real is real in its consequences." These kinds of broad social forces determined largely by perception of reality instead of what is really real have been studied by criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, economists, and games theorists, to name but a few. I don't know how many other scientific disciplines but it's certainly not true that "science" is only comprised of the observable and testable with anything else being simply useless and dangerous.

 

[KENNYB]

Actually...I think someone already answered that..or maybe I read it on a google search. Something to the effect that after Jesus' time, no one was allowed to perform miracles any more because what needed to be proven, had been proven during his life and that miracles were not a way for Jesus to help other but a way for Jesus to prove the power of God...

IIRC, there will be no more public revelations. Only private ones. Hopefully not between a priest and young boy.

 

[JaiWebb]

Unfortunately for your position, religion has also been used to abolish slavery, resist war, and condemn genocide. It's also been the lynchpin for various rights of women around the globe...including a fairly progressive position on women in society during the early Church's growth..

The bible disagrees with you and so does common sense, and then me.

The bible is pro-slavery, religious views have started the most wars worldwide, and God (according to the bible) committed the most genocide, like, ever. On top of that religious leaders appear to rape children like eating desserts after dinner.

Also religion is what holds women back (1 timothy 2 12), not picks them up. Are you a little delusional? Because you sound a little delusional.

 

[NKDietrich]

These kinds of broad social forces determined largely by perception of reality instead of what is really real have been studied by criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, economists, and games theorists, to name but a few. I don't know how many other scientific disciplines but it's certainly not true that "science" is only comprised of the observable and testable with anything else being simply useless and dangerous.

Without getting into the rabbit hole of "What is reality?" Those fields you describe still adhere to the scientific method and are very much observable and testable. Just because those observations and tests are sometimes qualitative rather than quantitative doesn't mean they are not subject to basic scientific rigor. That's why they are called social sciences. They are still science, not a magical thinking free-for-all with no objective truths or hard facts.

 

[KENNYB]

The bible disagrees with you and so does common sense, and then me.

The bible is pro-slavery, religious views have started the most wars worldwide, and God (according to the bible) committed the most genocide, like, ever. On top of that religious leaders appear to rape children like eating desserts after dinner.

Also religion is what holds women back (1 timothy 2 12), not picks them up. Are you a little delusional? Because you sound a little delusional.

Gods love slavery. How you think the pyramids got built? Cheap labor.

 

[nilepez]

Only an idiot would proclaim that current theories about origins of the universe are any less amazing than the idea an invisible tree frog named Merle did it with a dark matter catapult.

Seriously, the creation of stuff from nothing is possible, but higher powers aren't? I don't believe in the Bible myself, but the arrogance of some people regarding spirituality is astounding.

I don't have a problem with believe that there's higher power. I do have a problem with people that put it up there with science. Modred189 believes in God. Science doesn't say there's not a god. It says there's no evidence that god exists.

The lack of evidence leaves me as an atheist leaning agnostic. There's a huge difference between Modred and Manofgod. I'm not going to go back and read the entire thread, but I don't even think he's arguing that God must exist, just that he believes in God and that Science doesn't really speak to whether God does or does not exist.

I think 20% of the u.s. is agnostic or atheist...that leaves the vast majority as believers. By the same token, I think most believe in evolution. Some don't. I know smart people who don't. I don't know how they can believe what they believe, but I generally try not to argue about it.

Honestly, if we could get rid of the fundamentalists and the hard-core atheists (I've had friends tear people down just for saying I believe in God), who strike me as very similar to fundamentalists.

 

[nilepez]

I'll take it!
But it won't work. Any series of beings capable of such a simulation would build in failsafes that would falsify the returned data. To avoid the observer effect and all.

Assuming God is not flawless, there could be a bug in the stealth tech

 

[nilepez]

I do remember this line of conversation, and to fast forward to the end, my point was that faith is not based in reason, since reason would require evidence, and as has been said before, there is none.
At the end of the day, the whole POINT of faith is the absence of evidence. Faith is different from knowing. If we had evidence, there would be no faith, since we would know.

And I think there might be a mistake of application here. You imply that religion might be used as an understanding of reality. I'd argue otherwise. While some extremist/literalist groups might apply it that way, the majority would say that that it provides an explanation for what happens outside of our reality. Outside of the bounds of birth and death. Santa Clause, Purple People Eaters, Flying Spaghetti Monsters in the sky, are all common refrains from those who kind of miss the point. Those are all physical manifestations in our reality, with (theoretically) testable characteristics. As far as I am aware, no Abrahamic religion (nor most multi-theistic religions around today) offers up any such physical manifestations of God in our world today (again, with the exception of fringe literalist or exceptional groups). So such a comparison is not correct.

Of course the same argument might be made analogous to the modern application of a God: that is a Santa Clause, Purple People Eaters, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc is waiting for us when we die. But the great thing about faith is that I get to choose what I believe.

Is it reasonable? Is it rational?
Of course not. That's the point.

In fairness, I believe the entire point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was to show the ridiculousness of those arguing that ID was suitable for science classes, which based on what you've written, thus far, is not something you'd support.

 

[nilepez]

This is meaningless. What do you mean by 'outside of our reality?' What evidence do you have that there are things 'outside of our reality?' If these things are hidden in such a way that we can't deduce them through observation and experiment how is 'believing' in them in any way useful?

It brings many people comfort. If it doesn't do it for you, then there's no point in believing. I know one thing: there's a lot of really good music that was written by people who were thinking about God...then again there's even more that were writing about sex...but I digress.

 

[mope54]

Without getting into the rabbit hole of "What is reality?" Those fields you describe still adhere to the scientific method and are very much observable and testable. Just because those observations and tests are sometimes qualitative rather than quantitative doesn't mean they are not subject to basic scientific rigor. That's why they are called social sciences. They are still science, not a magical thinking free-for-all with no objective truths or hard facts.

I don't disagree with that. The point I'm making is that perception of things is at least as powerful, if not more so, than the literally observed thing when it comes to human beings, social systems, and beliefs.

So it's a non-starter for most of the globe's population to argue that since the thing they find meaning from can't be tested, it therefore isn't a tangible thing of import.

You basically sidelined the entire question that the whole argument rests upon in order to make your point that the scientific method is the gold standard of what is real--but you can't do that after specifically stating that you're not going to engage in a discussion about "what is reality." That is the pivotal question and the gap between what some people claim can only be identified through direct, observable "facts" vs. indirect, experiential "facts"

 

[mope54]

The bible disagrees with you and so does common sense, and then me.

The bible is pro-slavery, religious views have started the most wars worldwide, and God (according to the bible) committed the most genocide, like, ever. On top of that religious leaders appear to rape children like eating desserts after dinner.

Also religion is what holds women back (1 timothy 2 12), not picks them up. Are you a little delusional? Because you sound a little delusional.

OK, well in spite of what the bible says, you say, and your so-called common sense I'm going to rely on literal, human history.

As far as who seems to be delusional...I'm the one citing actual history and you're the one citing the bible. So you're going to have to ask yourself where that puts each of us on the continuum of delusion.

 

[fattypants]

Haha yeah. Creationists can have equal time on Cosmos as soon as Daniel Dennett or Bart Ehrman get their own show on TBN