Got faith?

Page 6 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

23 May 2011, 12:18 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

dionysian wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

When faith and belief are institutionalized and become instruments and motives for public actions, then they become a danger to others. My opinions are of no danger to anyone. Why? There is no force behind them. The good Christian folk take their religion to politics then they become a hazard to me and mine. Likewise when Muslim extremists target Jews they are a danger to me and mine. If a Muslim wishes to hate Jews in the privacy of his home that is one thing. When he incites or commits violence against Jews, that is another.

I think Christianity is a religion for idiots (that is my personal opinion) but not in one million years would I attempt to curtail the right of a Christian to hold his private beliefs.

ruveyn

Yeah, this much is true. Most people that don't already agree with you won't find much compelling in your expressions of bitterness, resentment, fear and bigotry.

It is "bigotry" to observe from a holistic world and historical perspective that religion is a far from benign institution?

Few institutions are consistently, over thousands of years, benign. It's not like religion can be singled out on that score.

The problem is the fact that institutions have to be run by people, and people can take a wrong course.

Even when they are perfectly sane and no psychosis or idiocy is involved.

I don't take issue with pointing out some of the stupid things done in the name of religion. I take issue with taking those instances and making a broader - and inaccurate - judgement about all who happen to have faith, or about all the possible roles faith can play in a culture. With billions of unique individuals and millions of churches, that type of broad brush is nonsense.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 May 2011, 12:26 pm

One further basic point should be made. Science does not create laws. It discovers them. All of science is concerned with the discovery of the intricate relationships of a few very basic natural laws and these laws are inviolable. All of the benefits of science and technology have been obtained by the understanding of and manipulation of these inviolable laws. The nature of a deity is that it is all powerful, not subject to any laws. If it had to obey natural law it would not be all powerful. Thereby, by definition, a deity personifies chaos. It cannot be restricted. And by that science and all it observes and understands within a system of natural laws is mutually exclusive with a deity. That is the basic conflict between science and religion.

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

23 May 2011, 12:31 pm

Sand wrote:

One of the most unacknowledged points in this discussion is that, although there are many differences in the different religions there is a rigid demand in most that the universe conform to the dogmas of their proposed beliefs.Atheists have no dogmas, most of them have rather individual and varied views of the nature of their reality and they have no written document of highly doubtful veracity demanding total acceptance to justify their viewpoint. What they have is a huge and tremendously precise library of excellent observations that have come up totally empty insofar as a supernatural force is concerned.All they can say about those observations is that they have a tremendous integrity, they can be repeated by anybody any time to be confirmed and they contain all the basic functional knowledge that underlies current technological civilization. That seems sufficient to me.

You are incorrect to claim there is no dogma for Atheists. While they might not acknowledge it as a group, there are several fairly persistent beliefs that numerous debates have tested and brought to the surface. They are not universal, any more than certain thoughts are universal among people of faith, but they are pervasive enough to be worth noting.

1) Believing in a deity requires a certain level of self-delusion.
2) Religion is a negative force in society.
3) The world would be better off if no one believed in deities and there were no religions.

Odain, Sand, and others ... can you honestly tell me that you do not believe in any one of these three points?

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 May 2011, 12:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

And I can safely say exactly the opposite.

No you can't (not safely anyhow). No one has offered in iota of objective intersubjectively verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

I have offered the evidence of my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism.

ruveyn wrote:

It is a matter of belief, not fact.

Not true.

ruveyn wrote:

Electricity is real. It can be measured. No such evidence exists for God. Not a scrap of it.

Nonsense.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 May 2011, 12:37 pm

Sand wrote:

Science does not create laws. It discovers them. All of science is concerned with the discovery of the intricate relationships of a few very basic natural laws and these laws are inviolable. All of the benefits of science and technology have been obtained by the understanding of and manipulation of these inviolable laws.

I can say exactly the same about the supernatural.

Sand wrote:

The nature of a deity is that it is all powerful, not subject to any laws.

Not true.

Sand wrote:

If it had to obey natural law it would not be all powerful.

Not true.

Sand wrote:

Thereby, by definition, a deity personifies chaos.

No, that is only dogma.

Sand wrote:

It cannot be restricted.

Not even by its own character/nature?

Sand wrote:

And by that science and all it observes and understands within a system of natural laws is mutually exclusive with a deity. That is the basic conflict between science and religion.

No, there is no conflict apart from dogma.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 May 2011, 12:40 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

Sand wrote:

This is the Merriam Webster definition of dogma:

Definition of DOGMA
1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

You seem to be denying there are grounds for the proposals that atheists claim. You seem to be historically proven to be wrong.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 May 2011, 12:43 pm

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

I can say exactly the same about the supernatural.

Sand wrote:

The nature of a deity is that it is all powerful, not subject to any laws.

Not true.

Sand wrote:

If it had to obey natural law it would not be all powerful.

Not true.

Sand wrote:

Thereby, by definition, a deity personifies chaos.

No, that is only dogma.

Sand wrote:

It cannot be restricted.

Not even by its own character/nature?

Sand wrote:

And by that science and all it observes and understands within a system of natural laws is mutually exclusive with a deity. That is the basic conflict between science and religion.

No, there is no conflict apart from dogma.

I'm terribly sorry, but merely saying "no" is insufficient.
You seem to be inventing some form of a deity not common knowledge at least not in my knowledge.
You claim to have knowledge of the character of God? That's quite a supposition.
All that is known of God is dogma. There are no verifiable observations.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

23 May 2011, 2:07 pm

@DW

the first depends on how a person relates to and incorporates said deity in their lives

as for number two, yes i think institutionalized religion bring more harm than good in the society of today.

i dont believe in number 3 at all

as i have said before i dont have anything against the "culture" of religion, only the behavior it produces when brought to the level it is today in society.
i also think religion played a vital role at some point in human development.

@lee
there is a very big difference between the kind of evidence one has for electricity and the supernatural
ruveyn put it quite well when he said there is no intersubjective way of proving it.

that doesnt have to say anything about any possibilities but the difference is there.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 May 2011, 2:15 pm

Sand wrote:

You claim to have knowledge of the character of God? That's quite a supposition.
All that is known of God is dogma. There are no verifiable observations.

... and yet the alleged "science" you and others present here does exactly the same!

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Last edited by leejosepho on 23 May 2011, 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 May 2011, 2:18 pm

Oodain wrote:

@lee
there is a very big difference between the kind of evidence one has for electricity and the supernatural
ruveyn put it quite well when he said there is no intersubjective way of proving it.

that doesn't have to say anything about any possibilities but the difference is there.

I typically reject "but", but I can accept that, as italicized.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

USMCnBNSFdude
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 943
Location: Texas

23 May 2011, 2:32 pm

MasterJedi wrote:

Raise your kids so they have a strong educational foundation. Raise them to have good study and diet habits so that they'll study hard, excel in school and one day make the world a better place.

Are you saying you can't be religious and get a good education?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 May 2011, 6:19 pm

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

You claim to have knowledge of the character of God? That's quite a supposition.
All that is known of God is dogma. There are no verifiable observations.

... and yet the alleged "science" you and others present here does exactly the same!

I find that an interesting proposition. Do you have any examples?

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 May 2011, 6:36 pm

Sand wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

You claim to have knowledge of the character of God? That's quite a supposition.
All that is known of God is dogma. There are no verifiable observations.

... and yet the alleged "science" you and others present here does exactly the same!

I find that an interesting proposition. Do you have any examples?

Certainly, and without putting you or anyone else on the spot personally:

People have decided "God" either could not or would not be one thing or another because "God" would then not (be able to) meet some standard they had allegedly established in accordance with "science" ...

... and then all of that ends up being dogma allegedly proving one thing or another about "God"!

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 May 2011, 6:51 pm

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

You claim to have knowledge of the character of God? That's quite a supposition.
All that is known of God is dogma. There are no verifiable observations.

... and yet the alleged "science" you and others present here does exactly the same!

I find that an interesting proposition. Do you have any examples?

What has that to do with your claim that science relies on dogma? What scientific basic proposition is based on unfounded material?

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 May 2011, 7:03 pm

Sand wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

You claim to have knowledge of the character of God? That's quite a supposition.
All that is known of God is dogma. There are no verifiable observations.

... and yet the alleged "science" you and others present here does exactly the same!

I find that an interesting proposition. Do you have any examples?

What has that to do with your claim that science relies on dogma?

Where have I ever said science relies on dogma?!

Sand wrote:

What scientific basic proposition is based on unfounded material?

How would I know?! I am no scientist!

Are you trying to trick me into something?! :roll:

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 May 2011, 7:18 pm

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

Sand wrote:

You claim to have knowledge of the character of God? That's quite a supposition.
All that is known of God is dogma. There are no verifiable observations.

... and yet the alleged "science" you and others present here does exactly the same!

I find that an interesting proposition. Do you have any examples?

What has that to do with your claim that science relies on dogma?

Where have I ever said science relies on dogma?!

Sand wrote:

What scientific basic proposition is based on unfounded material?

How would I know?! I am no scientist!

Are you trying to trick me into something?! :roll:

This is your statement:

[b]Sand wrote:
All they can say about those observations is that they have a tremendous integrity, they can be repeated by anybody any time to be confirmed and they contain all the basic functional knowledge that underlies current technological civilization. That seems sufficient to me.

Substitute "supernatural" for "technological" there and I can make exactly the same kind of statement and back it up well.[/b

In effect you claim technology is based on dogma just like assertions of the supernatural. I'm merely requesting concrete instances.

Page 6 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Got faith? Post Reply New Topic

Got faith?