Quote:

---

Existentialism states that there are no universal truths. For something to be a universal truth EVERYONE has to believe it. So, in your example, even the blind have to believe that the sky is blue (which, I think, would be rather difficult, as they may not have any notion of color).

Can't somebody just start a new thread? It's really not that hard. Please?

---

Quote:

---

Existentialism states that there are no universal truths. For something to be a universal truth EVERYONE has to believe it. So, in your example, even the blind have to believe that the sky is blue (which, I think, would be rather difficult, as they may not have any notion of color).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
No God, No Santa, no Fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Just get over it and find something else to argue about will you?

---

Quote:

---

Brought over from previous thread, posted by Nanite1018:
Here's my problem with religion: there's no evidence to support it; other than people's word. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. This type of thing is so remarkbable, so important, that you can't just take people's word for it;

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Can science help you create a moral code? Can science comfort you when a loved one dies? Can religion tell you the charge of an electron?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Interestingly, I don't get any help from religion to create my moral code either. Maybe human beings don't need these "authorities" to do our thinking for us.

---

Quote:

---

I've always found the consolation of religion just a little absurd and mainly I see it used to deaden real feeling rather than express it, i.e.: "Don't cry, your mother has gone to a better place." Oooh, that makes me crazy mad!

---

Quote:

---

The interesting thing about the charge of an electron is that the vast, vast majority of people live their entire lives without needing that information for themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Haha! Both science and religion are equally useless! Haha!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nanite1018:
Here's my problem with religion: there's no evidence to support it; other than people's word. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. This type of thing is so remarkbable, so important, that you can't just take people's word for it; which is what you're doing when you believe the Bible is true.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
You think you can honestly say that no religion has had any role in helping you create your moral code at all?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
You think you can honestly say that no religion has had any role in helping you create your moral code at all? I mean I came to my own morals my self, but I can't honestly say that I was not influenced by the religons around me and that I have come into contact with.

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between taking solace in religion, whether that's the community it fosters, the concepts or the belief or even having someone too turn too, god the priest whatever, and repressing your emotions because 'they've gone to a better place'. I've never taken this solace myself, but I find it silly to ignore the experience of a great many people who do.

---

Quote:

---

Your computer clockwork is it .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
I'll end up laying in corner babbling "none of it's real, none of it's real..." and that's just not productive. Or fun.

---

Quote:

---

And most everyone will agree because the sky is blue all over the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Plenty of influence, all of it bad. If some particular article of faith from this or that religion strikes my fancy, rings true, then I might appropriate the terminology, but I do my best to stay away from belief in general--I'd rather stick to what I know and what seems likely based upon previous experience. I don't need absolute proof of a thing to accept it, but I don't let myself get too attached either.

---

Quote:

---

Hey citizen, I think you might have to run this one by me again, I'm a li'l confused as to your meanin'. I find organized religion enormously repressive of emotions, sexuality, aggression, heterodox thinking, the list goes on and on. Tends to make me think that a lot of people have acquired a taste for repression, not that the religion isn't really repressing them just because it comforts them.

---

Quote:

---

do you think it's important for someone who uses a computer to know how it works? Just as the proper functioning of a democracy demands an informed electorate, does the proper functioning of a technologicaly society demand informed users? Do you think I'm giving up important power if I don't understand modern technology? I'm curious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DukKati:
1. If there is no God who created all, then what happens to these fact packed minds of great knowledge and the lowly uneducated when the body dies?

---

Quote:

---

2. If there are no absolute truths , then what keeps us from flying apart at the sub atomic level?

---

Quote:

---

3. Why is it a person needs more faith and reasoning to believe there is NO God?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DukKati:
I shall venture a few questions here.

1. If there is no God who created all, then what happens to these fact packed minds of great knowledge and the lowly uneducated when the body dies?

2. If there are no absolute truths , then what keeps us from flying apart at the sub atomic level?

3. Why is it a person needs more faith and reasoning to believe there is NO God?

I will try to read all that is posted to answer these questions, but please remember I only have a limited amount of time here and I aint gotts but a piece of edumacation.



I've been through the system.
It don't work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Are you sure? We've spoken on subjects before where your responses required some component of belief.

---

Quote:

---

Some people don't need help to learn, some people need teachers, and this seems like an argument of some minority saying teachers aren't necessary. Sure religions tend to fall prey to the old Human desire for power and control, but when it all comes together a priest is a teacher and should be pointing the way, not leading it.

---

Quote:

---

Are you really saying that those who confess to be comforted by religion, spirituality or even faith really just have a 'hard on' for being repressed?

---

Quote:

---

No, but holding the knowledge yourself and it affecting your daily life are two very different things. Without the knowledge of the electron and its properties and behaviours the electronic computer could not have been designed and built, thus whenever you use a computer your life is being affected by the knowledge of the electron, whether you yourself hold that knowledge is irrelevant.

If a miracle cancer drug was invented tomorrow and used to treat your cancer it has deeply affected your life, understanding how it works really isn't required for this.

If we transplanted Neanderthals to the 21st century they wouldn't understand any of our modern technology, but I can't see the argument that they wouldn't be affected by it.

---

Quote:

---

The interesting thing about the charge of an electron is that the vast, vast majority of people live their entire lives without needing that information for themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
citizen, you and I have been having arguments like this for a couple weeks now. You seem to want to reduce my arguments down to some simplified, binary oppositions. My mistrust of organized religion, and my own bad experiences with same, imply to you that I don't believe anyone needs teachers. lol

---

Quote:

---

Without needing the information for themselves. I never, never said that I or you or any transplanted Neanderthals didn't or couldn't benefit from modern technology. Never! I don't see how any of what you've been arguing against is implied by what I've said.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think you're a hypocrite or deluded or irrational, but I'm getting the feeling that you kinda think I am.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
so lets get this straight: there is no scientific evidence to disprove a "God" or it cant be proven either way

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
...like that guy David Blain, or this new guy mindfreak, theyre more recent examples, but can you argue for a natural explanation as to how someone can pass through solid objects, or levitate? i would argue that there are paranormal phenomon that cant be explained conventionally, and as with ghosts or excorcisms or near death experiences, i think there is more evidence of an extra dimension or plain of existence, or for that matter an afterlife, then no afterlife. if such things are possible, then why not an all powerfull collective consciensousness.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
lets say then that you rely on evolution for all your answeres. as a scientist, are your arguing that there are limits to the probability of variations of life in the universe? would you deny that any being could possibly exist beyond our own intelligence or dimension?

because you would then be making a presumption that you cant prove otherwise.

in other words, we have such an incredible abundance of life on our planet, literally the mother load..just by random chance, yet nothing superior exists in all the vastness of space and time? thats what im hearing..

any ancient culture who acknowledges super-human beings lends credence to the creation theory, because any polytheistic belief can be equated to the fallen angels of Gen. 6, beings which came from the heavens unto early Man, and taught him knowledge beyond his maturity; this includes any ancient mythological cities, entities or technologies that cant be explained by modern science, or which is conflicting with traditional timelines(such as the Sphynx and the possibility that they were built 10,000+bc)

and what about things which defy physics or reality? like rising from the dead, turning water into wine, healing the blind and the other miracles? Jesus said that we too could walk on water, but that we lacked faith.. similar to this mind over matter theory.

like that guy David Blain, or this new guy mindfreak, theyre more recent examples, but can you argue for a natural explanation as to how someone can pass through solid objects, or levitate? i would argue that there are paranormal phenomon that cant be explained conventionally, and as with ghosts or excorcisms or near death experiences, i think there is more evidence of an extra dimension or plain of existence, or for that matter an afterlife, then no afterlife. if such things are possible, then why not an all powerfull collective consciensousness

and lastly im not so sure you can prove those quotes to be contradictory if you read them in their full context; such as the specific book in its entirety, or even the whole of OT and NT scriptures. for example, most prophetic texts draw from terms and symbolism used in previous books, like Revelation, which requires knowledge of the previous books such as Jeremiah and Daniel. i would argue that in the same way, to understand the progression of thought, the scriptures must be studied in their collective forms

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
you have to deny a greater amount of information to be an athiest, than you do to be a creationist

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
first of all, im not out to convert those who disbelieve, that is a personal choice and i respect that; i do think its hypocritical to say that its ok to disagree as long as someone elses beliefs arent being forced up on you...when evolution is the sole curriculum taught in America. God forbid they teach an alternative theory to life, besides that we live and die and theres nothing more to it. i guess its only offensive when there are positive ethical and hopefull messages that are teached aswell

gods, angels, aliens, or whatever term you want to use for super-human beings does not create a contradiction to the bible. there is only one God, creator of the universe, but many accounts of beings perceived as (g)ods, which litter ancient cultures; even the flood story is nearly universal. the mainstream historical view is that Humans evolved from nothing, and after millions of years arrived at where we are today, solely out of our own ingenuity. yet that is contrary to what all of our ancestors have recorded, when they say that they were visited by "gods"


christianity is based on the belief that there is one, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent being, which exists beyond our reality, like a main frame computer.

can you prove otherwise? can we disprove that any supernatural entity can exist? and i suppose we should just throw out every recorded incident of apparitions, ghosts, evp's, or any thing else un-explained by science presently?

this is the problem, you deny whatever doesnt fit into your strictly physical darwinian view; including the accounts of Jesus, which have been as proven as reletively possible

we could argue about the semantics of this all day..and no one will win, because at the end of the day, there is noscientific evidence which supports either theory conclusively.

the difference is, im an not so arrogant as to believe that humans are the pinnacle of developement and uniqueness in the universe.

i am no so close minded as to deny that a greater consciousness might be at work in the universe.

and ultimately, i dont disregard everything my ancestors recorded as physical events, which actually occured...especially when we are just now rediscovering what the ancients already knew about the universe

you have to deny a greater amount of information to be an athiest, than you do to be a creationist

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nanite1018:

Evolution is the only scientifically proven theory about how life got to where it is today. Every fact we have supports it, nothing is out of place. We don't have fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. So why teach something that has no evidence? Now, i wouldn't mind if you had it in an elective class on religion, but it shouldn't be forced on those who don't want to learn something for which there is no evidence.

---

Quote:

---

I don't say it isn't possible that there are super-beings; i simply say they can't be supernatural. There is no God in the classical sense. Just much more advanced species than us. Nothing supernatural exists, how could it? There might be beings who live in other universes, or in 11-dimensional space-time. They would be considered god-like. But they aren't outside of the nature, they aren't outside the multi-verse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

this is the problem, you deny whatever doesnt fit into your strictly physical darwinian view; including the accounts of Jesus, which have been as proven as reletively possible

---

Quote:

---

we could argue about the semantics of this all day..and no one will win, because at the end of the day, there is no scientific evidence which supports either theory conclusively.

---

Quote:

---

you have to deny a greater amount of information to be an athiest, than you do to be a creationist

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Am I the only one around these boards who understands the concept of an analogy?

The idea I was trying to impart was that while you say that religion is counterproductive it may be for you, not necessarily for others, and that your personal experiences may not be replicated for everyone or even the majority.

What I was trying to say is that some people may be able to create a moral code, their own faith and spirituality etc without any help, but just as some gifted people don't need teachers to learn, most do. And just like teachers and schools some are good some are adequate and some are bad. In fact I was actually paying you a compliment.

---

Quote:

---

The implication of the statement whether that is what you meant or not is that that information is not important to us in our daily lives, which of course it is, whether we benefit directly or indirectly from that knowledge seems irrelevant to me.

---

Quote:

---

I do find it curious that you *seem* quick to dismiss the idea that religion can be good for some people, given your other postings I’d of thought you would be the last person to do something like that, am I misunderstanding your intent?

---

Quote:

---

in other words, we have such an incredible abundance of life on our planet, literally the mother load..just by random chance,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I appreciate your analogies. It's just when you present your analogies as if paraphrasing my ideas that I get cranky. Instead of telling me what my argument means, you could bring up your analogy as something new and entirely citizen-generated: "What you're saying about religion, HK, reminds me of a larger argument to do with teachers..." Then I could appreciate your idea without having to gum up the conversation with "but I didn't say anything about teachers! Blah, blah, blah."

---

Quote:

---

I don't quite agree that some people need spiritual teachers and some people do not. Not fundamentally. As I understand these matters, spiritual decisions are profoundly personal. For everybody. It is profoundly unhealthy to defer to anyone about matters of spirit because to do so interferes directly with our ability to percieve spiritual reality in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, in the last five years, and more and more each day, I have found myself becoming more and more convinced that Christianity is really, fundamentally effed up. When people go on and on about the evil of Islam and the Koran, I see the very same principles at the heart of Christianity and the Bible. Sure Jesus was an alright dude, but my favorite sayings of Jesus aren't even in the Bible! So I'm more willing than ever to say of the Christian Project, "Shut it all down! Next!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
are you saying you cant prove a murder case by using eye witness accounts? so what exactly is the Bible, and the numerous third person accounts of a historical Jesus, and the miracles he performed? as is well known, the apostle Paul witnessed Jesus before and after his ressurection, which is what converted him from a persecutor to one of the greatest believers! it is not hard to prove that Jesus existed, and died on the cross..or that hundreds of people witnessed his ressurection, to the extent that they were murdered and pursued ruthlessly by the Romans for their beliefs. would you die for darwinism, or especially something you couldnt prove even happened?

---