Faith and Reason by misbehaven

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

"The conflict between science and religion is reducible to simple fact of human cognition and discourse;

This actually only holds in the current climate AND is only primarily in the US (and Canada to a great lesser degree). There is no other large stronghold of fundamentalism outside of North America.

Also, my wife has the wonderful magazine from the 50's (60's?) that goes over how science and religion do NOT conflict and that there is NO problem. I should also mention that it is a US publication (I can get the details of it if you want).

I find it sad that such proof exists that our reason and intellectual processes have gone back so very much.

*sigh*

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, my wife has the wonderful magazine from the 50's (60's?) that goes over how science and religion do NOT conflict and that there is NO problem. I should also mention that it is a US publication (I can get the details of it if you want).

It tends to be Religion that attempts to crush science, rather than the other way around. Science just does what it does, then because it doesn't further whatever religions particular view you get funde nuts going out of the way to get rid of science because science attacked them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

This actually only holds in the current climate AND is only primarily in the US (and Canada to a great lesser degree). There is no other large stronghold of fundamentalism outside of North America.

I agree that the largest stronghold of religious fundamentalism (at least Christian fundamentalism) exists in the U.S., but I'm not entirely sure that there are no other areas in the world where Christian fundamentalism thrives. Africa comes most immediately to mind; Christian fundamentalism is growing quite rapidly there.

Quote:
Also, my wife has the wonderful magazine from the 50's (60's?) that goes over how science and religion do NOT conflict and that there is NO problem. I should also mention that it is a US publication (I can get the details of it if you want).

If it's not too much trouble, I'd be very interested in having more information on the magazine. This is an area, as I previously mentioned, that I find quite interesting, and I always try to read from multiple points of view.

Call upon God, but row away from the rocks.
-Hunter S. Thompson

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:

It tends to be Religion that attempts to crush science, rather than the other way around. Science just does what it does, then because it doesn't further whatever religions particular view you get funde nuts going out of the way to get rid of science because science attacked them.

Very true.

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This actually only holds in the current climate AND is only primarily in the US (and Canada to a great lesser degree). There is no other large stronghold of fundamentalism outside of North America.

I agree that the largest stronghold of religious fundamentalism (at least Christian fundamentalism) exists in the U.S., but I'm not entirely sure that there are no other areas in the world where Christian fundamentalism thrives. Africa comes most immediately to mind; Christian fundamentalism is growing quite rapidly there.

Well you got me there; Africa certainly is a problem in this regard. So, I'll now confine this comment to the western world.

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

Quote:
Also, my wife has the wonderful magazine from the 50's (60's?) that goes over how science and religion do NOT conflict and that there is NO problem. I should also mention that it is a US publication (I can get the details of it if you want).

If it's not too much trouble, I'd be very interested in having more information on the magazine. This is an area, as I previously mentioned, that I find quite interesting, and I always try to read from multiple points of view.

The wife and I don't live in the same city at the moment. But, I called her and she said it was Life magazine from the early 50's. She's going to look for it when she gets home from work and I'll hopefully have something more specific then.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 9:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This goes along with my deifnition of 'faith' - which is that which you believe - in the absense of proof or the the presence of disproof. If I remember correctly CTS thought that that definition shouldn't be used. HK thought that the word was too divisive and wanted to use the word 'trust'.

But 'faith' is the basis of fundamentalist religion. You can't get around it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 9:53 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

Truth be told, I now receive e-mails of protest from people who claim, in all apparent earnestness, to believe that Poseidon and the other gods of Greek mythology are real."

Fair enough. I'm a born-again Pagan. I believe in all the Gods--and none of them.

Gods are symbols, each of one or more aspects of an infinite mystery. Our small human minds can no more understand the whole than a teacup can contain the Ocean Sea.

And even those who claim monotheism, I notice, divide their deity into trinities, or dualities, to try and rationalize the inevitable contradictions.

As for faith and reason--they are the shoes on your feet. You'll travel further and faster with both, than with either alone.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 11:23 AM

its easy for us, in the 21st century, with the luxury of all of our modern advances..to set back and play arm-chair quarterback, and denegrate people who existed thousands of years before our own existence.. and say that they were dillusional, ignorant savages with no understanding of our origins; is that what you all are saying? cause im not willing to go that far.. and thank God their are still some impartial scientists and knowledge seekers who are willing to investigate what is actually known about our earliest origins

would it not be foolish to throw away what should be considered historical evidence.. that crosses continents and shares similar archetypes, such as a universal flood, a super human intervention, and a greater purpose and destiny of mankind? surely you recognize the spiritual messages of these cultures and what they were trying to convey?

besides that, you deny that mankind is anything more than an intelligent beast; who is merely more evolved then the closest of kin mammal. its clear to me that we have been given a 'gift' or curse, a consciousness unlike any other species; which should be obvious, since we can create beyond our physical environment; we can manifest thoughts; and we can choose a lifestyle or worldview of our choice; no other species on earth have this luxury!

in Job it says

"but ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or seek to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?"

i think thats a profound question; what is it about mankind that allows us to exist contrary to nature and its patters? why is man so defiant of nature.. yet other species are destined the fate of their environments? i dont believe science has or will ever have the tools to answer these questions; yet the bible does, as it says that Man is in a fallen state, out of touch with God, and denying his existence

science is only as good as its methods of measurement, which vary(aswell as the results), and can only test physical, reproducable data.. all of which God and the essence of spirituality are illusive too

i would like for you to consider this information, and what it eludes to, because it makes a good case as to how Darwin(which is what you specifically mean by reason) is in many ways a repackaged occult(mystical) belief, also FAITH BASED

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy2.htm

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”

- Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116
(Huxley being one of Darwins mentors)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 11:37 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

"The conflict between science and religion is reducible to simple fact of human cognition and discourse;

This actually only holds in the current climate AND is only primarily in the US (and Canada to a great lesser degree). There is no other large stronghold of fundamentalism outside of North America.

Also, my wife has the wonderful magazine from the 50's (60's?) that goes over how science and religion do NOT conflict and that there is NO problem. I should also mention that it is a US publication (I can get the details of it if you want).

I find it sad that such proof exists that our reason and intellectual processes have gone back so very much.

*sigh*

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

You never met anyone from Latin America, The Middle East, or India I guess. America is non-religious compared to these places.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 1:04 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”

- Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116
(Huxley being one of Darwins mentors)

Aldous Huxley wrote BNW. His grandfather, Thomas Henry, was a defender and contemporary of Darwin. Aldous was not a "mentor" to Charles Darwin or vice versa, seeing how Aldous was born (1894)after Darwin died (1882).

On another note, don't make the incorrect assertion that the theories of evolution and natural selection were based upon Christian foundations, nor are they 'beliefs' in and of themselves. Darwin was (at times) a Christian, so was T.H.Huxley (at times), but both men were scientists first and foremost. Huxley believed that science was common sense, and even though he was primarily an agnostic he believed the Bible could teach strong moral values - but not science.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 1:20 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”

- Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116
(Huxley being one of Darwins mentors)

Anti, great quote that made me think..a bit!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 1:23 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This goes along with my deifnition of 'faith' - which is that which you believe - in the absense of proof or the the presence of disproof. If I remember correctly CTS thought that that definition shouldn't be used. HK thought that the word was too divisive and wanted to use the word 'trust'.

But 'faith' is the basis of fundamentalist religion. You can't get around it.

Let us remember that one can be a Christian and NOT be a fundamentalist.

My problem with Fundamentalist Evangelicals is the belief they have that one has to be "born again". This goes against what I was taught as a Protestant child and a Catholic adult.

I will note for you all that I do not go to church and have a problem with most organized religions. But I am very spiritual and I would say that you could call me a Christian.

Seems to me the problem with American society re:Christianity in the US, can be laid at the feet of the baby boomers. Everything is our fault.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

You never met anyone from Latin America, The Middle East, or India I guess.

You never read my subsequent post I guess.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 2:17 PM

@misbehaven:

Got that reply from the wife w/ an exert of the article:

"""
From Life magazine, September 7, 1953:
The world we live in: part V
The Pageant of Life, by Lincoln Barnett

"Darwin's theory was quickly recognized as one of the great scientific achievements of all time, for it illuminated the whole grand panorama of animal life on earth, past and present... The theological implications led to longer disputes, though Darwin was a religious man and it was not he but some of his followers who wished to dispense with God. Today, while there remain fundamentalists of all faiths who regard Genesis as a literal document open to no interpretation, the main stream of thought in Western theology has embraced evolution as the scientific account of creation. Not is this interpretive tradition new. Long ago St. Augustine
discussed various ways in which the work of the Six Days might be understood, and St. Thomas Aquinas distinguished between the initial
creation of matter and the establishment of natural laws that have continued to effect change in the physical world."

This 20 page article sits between reports on horse races and swimming, and ads for stockings, coffee and beer.
"""

Kind of illuminates how far we've gone down in the past 50+ years, no?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Kind of illuminates how far we've gone down in the past 50+ years, no?

Indeed, it certainly does. I really appreciate you tracking down the information on the article. I'll have to see if can locate a copy, because what you've posted definitely has my interest. Thanks again.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

I really appreciate you tracking down the information on the article. I'll have to see if can locate a copy, because what you've posted definitely has my interest. Thanks again.

No worries. I'll pass the thanks along to the wife as she's the one who did all the real work.

I would imagine that you could find it on microfesh at a local library. But, possibly an antique store as well (that's where the wife found her copy).

Anyway, hope it turns out to be useful. Have fun

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 10:21 AM

Whenever posed with a question of religion vs science I like to quote two scientists who's veiws I share.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei

I can't put it any better than that.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 11:28 AM

CAVALIER

Of course there is the reply Laplace is said to have made to Napoleon, when asked if he believed in God.

"Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whimsicalnbrainpan:

Whenever posed with a question of religion vs science I like to quote two scientists who's veiws I share.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei

I can't put it any better than that.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

Einstein's quote about science without religion is taken out of context in that he is not talking about religion in the sense of a belief in God but in a 'cosmic religious sense'. He had no faith and was openly athiestic despite the negative press he received for it.

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

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
The following are excerpts from Sam Harris' book: Letter to a Christian Nation (66-68). So far it is proving to be a very interesting read. I am also looking forward to reading Richard Dawkins' new book: The God Delusion. Too many books to read, and too little time to read them.

Have you read 'The God Delusion' yet? I finished it a couple of days ago. As an already hardline athiest I can't say it was a life changing read, but it certainly was a life affirming one.

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

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 3:03 PM

I still haven't found the time to read it. It's been a busy week at work, and it doesn't look like it's going to let up for several more. I'm a devout atheist as well, so I'm not sure it going to do anything more for me than it did for you. But I'm looking forward to reading it just the same.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 3:37 PM

what is the evidence that supports the God delusion? i assume God, and the concept of such a deity, is the root cause of every evil the world has ever known.. and the removal of religion, and all spiritual worldviews, would be the cataylst to bridge the gap of all known iniquities, and finally unite man in indivisive cooperation?

i just want to know if that is your assertion; since that seems to be the general attitude of athiests i meet; that the world religions are to blame for everything

basically that Darwinism is proven 100% verifiable.. and scientism, adopted as a new worldview, would more successfully bring upon global peace?

you missed the links i posted last time that suggested that Darwinism is a clever repackaging of freemasonic, occult theology... i guess you missed them, so here they are again

*ascendency of a scientific dictatorship
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy2.htm

id like to hear your opinions on them, but ultimately i am curious of your personal worldviews, and your premise for the argument that all cultures of antiquety were dillusional

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

what is the evidence that supports the God delusion? i assume God, and the concept of such a deity, is the root cause of every evil the world has ever known.. and the removal of religion, and all spiritual worldviews, would be the cataylst to bridge the gap of all known iniquities, and finally unite man in indivisive cooperation?

i just want to know if that is your assertion; since that seems to be the general attitude of athiests i meet; that the world religions are to blame for everything

Personally, I think that religion is just the most convenient excuse. If it wasn't religion, it'd just be something else i.e. People like power and some will do just about anything to get it and/or more of it.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

basically that Darwinism is proven 100% verifiable.. and scientism, adopted as a new worldview, would more successfully bring upon global peace?

Point of fact, evolution is not 100% proven. It just has the most going for it. Also, given my (pretty much proven) conjecture about the human condition, I gather that global peace is unattainable.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

you missed the links i posted last time that suggested that Darwinism is a clever repackaging of freemasonic, occult theology... i guess you missed them, so here they are again

*ascendency of a scientific dictatorship
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy2.htm

I like the domain that those links are to as the first thing that I thought of when I read the statment that "Darwinism is a..." I immediately thought conspiracy theory. I'll try to get around to read those links though. Should proven an interesting read.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 4:34 PM

well i appreciate your openmind; im not completely ruling out evolution as a natural process.. im just not willing to deny the Creator hypothesis either; since it makes an incredible case for itself given what is known about the pre-deluvian era, and the commonality of archetypical, divine intervention myths. i genuinely believe that mans true origins have been denied us, and groups like the freemasons and other esoteric occult secret societies withold knowledge that comes directly from these fallen angelic entities

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
what is the evidence that supports the God delusion? i assume God, and the concept of such a deity, is the root cause of every evil the world has ever known.. and the removal of religion, and all spiritual worldviews, would be the cataylst to bridge the gap of all known iniquities, and finally unite man in indivisive cooperation?

As I previously noted, I haven't yet had the time to read the book, and I probably won't be able to read it for several weeks. So, I honestly couldn't say what Dawkin's evidence might be. I personally don't think that God (or the concept thereof) is the root cause of every evil, but there's no denying that many of the most heinous atrocities ever perpetrated were brought about by peoples' belief that they were doing God(s) will.

And while I might like to see a world in which religion takes a back seat to reason, I know this will never happen; however, if it were possible, then yes I do think we'd find a good deal more equality, humanity, compassion, and cooperation, as religion, at least as it is practiced by many people, teaches division, intolerance, and all too frequently outright hatred.

As for the conspiracy stuff, I hardly know what to say to that, because I've never been one to follow such things. But I really see no connection between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and freemasonic, occult theology. One is grounded in overwhelming scientific evidence, and the other is founded upon archaic, superstitious nonsense. Please, don't take that the wrong way, but I neither believe nor have much use for most of the conspiratorial rantings I've read.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Aldous Huxley wrote BNW. His grandfather, Thomas Henry, was a defender and contemporary of Darwin. Aldous was not a "mentor" to Charles Darwin or vice versa, seeing how Aldous was born (1894)after Darwin died (1882).

your right.. i was confused in my mind, i knew there was some family influence though

Quote:
On another note, don't make the incorrect assertion that the theories of evolution and natural selection were based upon Christian foundations, nor are they 'beliefs' in and of themselves. Darwin was (at times) a Christian, so was T.H.Huxley (at times), but both men were scientists first and foremost. Huxley believed that science was common sense, and even though he was primarily an agnostic he believed the Bible could teach strong moral values - but not science.

dont worry... the thought never crossed my mind; actually the link i posted makes the claim that Darwin and his idealogical proteges were fairly well acquanted with the doctrines of the occult heirarchy (masons, rosicrucians, illuminists, royal and lunar society members), and may have incorporated these laws into Darwins own theories. but i would have to disagree with huxley, the bible doesnt discourage scientific knowledge, it just ultimately attributes it to a greater power

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:29 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
actually the link i posted makes the claim that Darwin and his idealogical proteges were fairly well acquanted with the doctrines of the occult heirarchy (masons, rosicrucians, illuminists, royal and lunar society members), and may have incorporated these laws into Darwins own theories.

Darwin in later life was an atheist. T.H.Huxley was at best an agnostic, as were most of their contemporaries - they were not occult practitioners.

No offense, Antimason, but it is the height of ignorance to claim that the scientific theories put forth by those men are the result of some occult conspiracy. As someone above pointed out, the fact that the domain names just scream tinfoil-hat crackpots is an insult to both religion and science.

But hey, if you need to believe that lizard-alien hybrids (who hate Jesus) from beyond the stars have come to take over the government and steer our scientific discoveries, then hey - whatever helps you sleep at night.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

im not completely ruling out evolution as a natural process..

Given the landslide of evidence that supports evolution, why aren't you leaning toward it at least (you seem to lean toward creator)?

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

im just not willing to deny the Creator hypothesis either;

...

withold knowledge that comes directly from these fallen angelic entities

From these two statments you seem to believe that there are "angelic entities" or are at least assuming them. What actual evidence of there existance exists? B/c, I've seen nothing but hand-waving, "you have to have faith" type arugments from people, or at best cooked stats for such things.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 7:54 PM

Quote:
Einstein's quote about science without religion is taken out of context in that he is not talking about religion in the sense of a belief in God but in a 'cosmic religious sense'. He had no faith and was openly athiestic despite the negative press he received for it.

"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand."

Okay, there it is in a wider context.

"In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Note that Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words. Spinoza was a naturalistic pantheist."

Spinoza believed that God is nature and the universe at work and that God doesn't have a personality. The definition of atheism is: A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Clearly while Einstein did not believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God, he did believe in God and was not an atheist.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 4:50 AM

Einstein was awed by the complexity of the universe and by his place in it. He referred to this magnificent natural structure as God, but by no means did he mean it in a theistic sense. I could just as easily call the universe 'God' and share Einstein's reason for doing so, however this would not stop me being an athiest, as I would not believe in God the deity, but God the universe.

Another Einstein quote on religion:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What i see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuine religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

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

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
its easy for us, in the 21st century, with the luxury of all of our modern advances..to set back and play arm-chair quarterback, and denegrate people who existed thousands of years before our own existence.. and say that they were dillusional, ignorant savages with no understanding of our origins; is that what you all are saying? cause im not willing to go that far.. and thank God their are still some impartial scientists and knowledge seekers who are willing to investigate what is actually known about our earliest origins

So your argument is:
Because we have more scientific knowledge now than we did then we know less because I don't like the current scientific explination. Wow, that's even less logical than the ussual fundementalist arguments.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 8:35 AM

TPAGE

What's all this about a scienitific dictatorship? I don't see the world governments as basing their power on science, though they do use science.

Science is used simply because it tends to answer many more questions about our current state than religion. Ex. water quality just cannot be answered by religion, thus the government uses science when determining environmental laws, &c.

Instead of basing government on religion, which in essence is simply another idea, they base their power on other ideas. A prominent idea in the U.S.A. is captialism. However, in this 'new' system, the opinion of the people may change and thus the ideas the governments are based on much change or be replaced by another government.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
what is the evidence that supports the God delusion? i assume God, and the concept of such a deity, is the root cause of every evil the world has ever known.

I think you're the only person here saying that.

Quote:
that seems to be the general attitude of athiests i meet; that the world religions are to blame for everything

I'm an atheist, I suppose that you've "met" me electronically, and that's not what I think.

Quote:
basically that Darwinism is proven 100% verifiable.

That's not how science works. It is impossible to 100% verify a hypothesis. It is, OTOH, relatively easy to disprove one, or at least parts of one. So far, nothing has turned up to disprove Darwin's hypothesis since the "evidence" to do so has turned out to be either fabricated or misinterpreted

Quote:
scientism, adopted as a new worldview, would more successfully bring upon global peace?

Not unless we extend our scientific endeavors to understand and accomdate the one thing that causes most of our problems- ourselves.

Quote:
Darwinism is a clever repackaging of freemasonic, occult theology

yada yada.

Anti- As you like to say, people are imperfect. If you take a look at any group of people on any dimension that you care to name you will find that they occupy a distribution. Even behavioral traits are distributed: shyness, attention span, irritability, empathy etc. Some people who are born with no sense of guilt- these are true sociopaths. Others have a really short fuse, lowered IQ and poor impulse control. Others are abused into criminal behavior. Since my daughter had a stroke when she was born and I deal with her behaviors and the behaviors of her friends and classmates, I can give you a boringly long list how the physical affects the behavioral, metnal, and even "spiritual". This is the source of individual evil.

But there is institutional evil as well. One thing I find in all societies of any size is the tendency for power to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands, leading to complere corruption at teh top and misery at the bottom. Strangely, it is the tendency of most people to avoid confrontation that actually allows this to happen.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:14 AM

Quote:
Einstein was awed by the complexity of the universe and by his place in it. He referred to this magnificent natural structure as God, but by no means did he mean it in a theistic sense. I could just as easily call the universe 'God' and share Einstein's reason for doing so, however this would not stop me being an athiest, as I would not believe in God the deity, but God the universe.

Another Einstein quote on religion:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What i see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuine religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

I guess I need you to answer a question for me then. How can someone who calls themselves religious, even if it is not in any traditional sense, be considered an atheist? I'm not trying to bait you or put you down here, this is an honest question. The handfull of atheists I've know in "real life" would never use that word to describe what they believe in given its connotation. I do get your point on the use of the word God but I still can't comprehend why a true atheist would use it.

I still stand by my veiw that Einstein thought that religion and science are not exclusive to themselves but rather they reflect or connect to each other. Which is the point I was trying to make not what his personal dogma (or maybe anti-dogma is better

) was.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Completely off the subject, I love your sig. I'm a huge Dark Tower fan and that is one of my favorite quotes. "Long days and pleasant nights."

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

*ascendency of a scientific dictatorship
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy2.htm

From the first paragraph on the first link I can tell that this is complete crap and skimming the "references" only shows that further. All this article does is giving one persons conspiracy theory and (s)he "supports" it by referencing what other people have said which agrees with him/her. The problem here is that no actual fact is referenced, just books/articles/etc that other people have written which basically are the same thing as this author is doing here.

Simply put, you have person A who has some crack-pot theory and writes about it giving no reference to any actual fact(s). Then some people think that this is a good idea and do the same thing, but reference person A. Then more people do the same but reference not just A, but everyone else as well. etc.

So, we end up with a structure that is entirely dependent on that first person (or but a few that are doing the exact same thing) which is completely fallacious. This is basically a structure that is a house of cards in a strong wind.

Sorry man, but my bullshit detector went into overdrive when I started to read it. And I gave it two chances as when I started to read it last night, I was very tired and thought that I might be missing something. So, I just tried again and got the same results.

IMO, you should move away from this type of thing/people/way of thinking. Perhaps take a math course would help as those courses tend to give the successful student a very keen sense of logic and more importantly, what isn't logic.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whimsicalnbrainpan:

I guess I need you to answer a question for me then. How can someone who calls themselves religious, even if it is not in any traditional sense, be considered an atheist?

I think because you and Einstein are using very different definitions of the term religous and you seem to be arguing from the point of view in which they are the same.

Basically, he seems to be calling himself a atheist using the conventional defintion of religous, but religous in his own unique definition of that term. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot really be compared in the same context.

Yes/no?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whimsicalnbrainpan:
I guess I need you to answer a question for me then. How can someone who calls themselves religious, even if it is not in any traditional sense, be considered an atheist? I'm not trying to bait you or put you down here, this is an honest question. The handfull of atheists I've know in "real life" would never use that word to describe what they believe in given its connotation. I do get your point on the use of the word God but I still can't comprehend why a true atheist would use it.

I still stand by my veiw that Einstein thought that religion and science are not exclusive to themselves but rather they reflect or connect to each other. Which is the point I was trying to make not what his personal dogma (or maybe anti-dogma is better ) was.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Completely off the subject, I love your sig. I'm a huge Dark Tower fan and that is one of my favorite quotes. "Long days and pleasant nights."

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

I'll try and avoid talk of Einstein and talk only of myself, though I believe Einstein shared many if not all of my feelings on the subject.

In an attempt to answer your question in a logical manner I thought it best to use the dictionary definition for certain words and not place my own meaning in them. I am an atheist in the sense that I am not a theist. Theism being:

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

I do not believe in a spiritual God nor a creator God (nor in any God at all for that matter). In this sense I am an atheist. I am not a nihilist (a world view many people assume all atheists are). However in looking around me I can see how beautiful, intricate and incredible the world and the universe are and am equally humbled and awed by it and by my understanding of my place within it, by the incredible number of tiny steps it has taken to get from the big bang (or whatever did indeed start the universe) to the world we live in now and my existence within it.

The dictionary (I'm using dictionary.com for this btw) gives nine definitions of religion, but I think the first one is best which defines it as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" and in this sense I am religious. Buddhism is a good example of a religion which can be attached to anyone, be they theist or atheist. You could also include humanism (though its status as a religion is more tenuous than Buddhism is), and I certainly find myself leaning towards the humanist philosophy.

I hope this answers your question adequately, if not feel free to ask anything else. I was wracking my brain for a suitable Dark Tower quote and thought this was perfect: 'and that it the truth'

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

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 12:26 PM

But didn't Einstien also say:
"God does not play dice with the Universe"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But didn't Einstien also say:
"God does not play dice with the Universe"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

I believe he was being metaphorical. There's actually a segment on that quote in The God Delusion, but unfortunately I don't have it to hand to reference it for you. As such I'll try and give my limited interpretation of it:

He did say that, but as previously stated Einstein referred to the creative forces of the universe, the 'lawful harmony of the world' as God so what he was actually saying was the universe does not play dice with itself, that a universe based on logical scientific progression and maintenance cannot be random.

Interesting to note though, is that he is almost universally condemned (by physicists at least) as being quite wrong on that point.

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

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
Interesting to note though, is that he is almost universally condemned (by physicists at least) as being quite wrong on that point.

And by himself

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 2:16 PM

Thank you for your honest and open answer Chronicthehedgehog, I appreciate it. I still find it odd to hear an atheist use the word religion. The definitions I get from Wordweb for religion are: 1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. 2. An institution to express belief in a divine power. My Webster's Dictonary pretty much echoes that definition so please understand that this is what I think of when the word is used. I need to check out that dictonary.com.

Please know that not all of us "religious types"

think that atheists are amoral nihilists. While I do understand your beliefs I can not comprehend them (sorry I couldn't help myself) and I do not think less of you for having them either. While we may not agree on the subject of God I do believe that "we are well met".

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:36 PM