A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

IThat does not automatically translate to it was some metaphysical energy or intelligence guiding it all. It simply means I don't know

Meta-physical has conotations. What i am talking about isn't physical at all.
I'm not talking about guiding anything either, just something that makes it all work. I don't know!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know. How can this energy you talk about come from nothing?

I don't think it does come from nothing. I don't think it comes from anything tbh. I think it is whatever i am trying to explain. Sounds crazy i know

Now i sound stupid.

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

I don't think it does come from nothing. I don't think it comes from anything tbh. I think it is whatever i am trying to explain. Sounds crazy i know

Now i sound stupid.

If you think this energy always existed why is it so hard to believe the matter always existed and maybe we've had multiple big bangs, which is one of the theories.

I wouldn't say you sound stupid. The dilemma you're facing is the origin of all religion. At least you didn't give the energy a white beard, a cloud paradise and a son who is also himself

Dades

togster wrote: »

OK then this is the wrong place for me, because i don't know how to explain things with the right terminology. I apologise for that.

You've nothing to apologise for. This forum is for everyone.

Just be warned that people here are rather sceptical to theories that are flights of fancy to explain things we don't yet understand. Tis that way religion lies!

Zillah

togster wrote: »

OK then this is the wrong place for me, because i don't know how to explain things with the right terminology. I apologise for that.

I don't mean gravity is intelligent rather if it happens then something must cause it to be.

Look it's obvious i'm not going to be able to compete in the area of science with you guys.

Well look, let's really break it down to your main point here:


You're essentially asking that old chestnut: What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? As in, all of it, what's going on with this whole universe thing? (I will physically stab anyone who says 42. Hawhee hawhee hawhee haw! Yes we've all read Adams)

The only answer that a reasonable person can give is "I don't know". Sure if you ask me why gravity exists I have to shrug but the fact that I admit I don't have an answer doesn't mean we should feel entitled to make one up. You don't understand the basis for love, so instead of talking about "energy" and all that...silliness...read a decent neuroscience article that discusses the basics behind the physical basis for emotion. And if you're not willing to educate yourself on this stuff then you may as well stop asking the question, cos the answer is out there.

CDfm

XLII

Sam Vimes

Love the new sig CerebralCortex

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Love the new sig CerebralCortex

I changed it again. I don't think it's fair. I don't want to turn away a potential poster.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

XLII

101010

togster

Zillah wrote: »

The only answer that a reasonable person can give is "I don't know".

You are right. I'm just saying that i think it's a possibility as there are a huge amount of other possibilities. It makes sense to me on some level that's all. I guess i'm looking at it from a non-scientific point of view.

For 25 years of my life, i never even bothered to look around myself and be interested in anything, and this is one of the most intersting forums on boards imo. I'm not questioning life, just trying to figure it out in my own way

I just think the world and life and the universe is awe inspiring.

I'm not saying anyone else should feel the same way, and i thank you all (including CerebralCortex ) for enlightening me further.

togster

CerebralCortex wrote: »

3) You're taking the piss.

I'm really not.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you leave the bible entirely open to interpretation, basically saying it's valid to define black as white if it suits you, there is no way you can tell Fred Phelps that his reading is any less valid than yours because no one has anything to back up any of their assertions.

Not so. Some interpretations can be argued to have more validity than others if they have more scriptural support than others.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As far as I can see CDfm, you are telling me that it's perfectly valid to define christianity as whatever the hell you want it to be and then firmly believe that the authority of God is backing up everything you say and do.

I don't see how the part in bold follows. Why would a Christian think that the authority of God backs up everything they do and say? Christians believe that they deviate from God's will all the time.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And so I'll ask the question again, do you not see how that is incredibly dangerous? As an atheist I define my own world view the same as you but I acknowledge that I might be wrong where a christian thinks that his view is given authority by God.

Frankly it seems to me that generally atheists feel much more certain in their worldview than theists do (as John Gray also observes in Straw Dogs). Hence all the talk of having "evidence" on their side. Classic case was the recent discussion I had with others on this forum who were claiming that science favours their atheism. Do you not see how such certainty that one has the authority of reason and science on their side as being dangerous?

CerebralCortex

togster wrote: »

I'm really not.

Sorry.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Not so. Some interpretations can be argued to have more validity than others if they have more scriptural support than others.

I was responding to CDfm who was suggesting otherwise. As you point out, of course some are more valid than others and you can't just leave it open to whatever people want to take from it.

Húrin wrote: »

I don't see how the part in bold follows. Why would a Christian think that the authority of God backs up everything they do and say? Christians believe that they deviate from God's will all the time.

The problem is when they don't think they're deviating from God's will because they have misinterpreted it, or quite often interpreted it correctly, such as people who can find support for being against women's rights and homosexuality and for slavery in the bible.

Húrin wrote: »

Frankly it seems to me that generally atheists feel much more certain in their worldview than theists do (as John Gray also observes in Straw Dogs). Hence all the talk of having "evidence" on their side. Classic case was the recent discussion I had with others on this forum who were claiming that science favours their atheism. Do you not see how such certainty that one has the authority of reason and science on their side as being dangerous?

Then by all means supply me with this evidence as I asked you before. What I am certain of is that people have been asking theists for the evidence for thousands of years and it has yet to be presented. Until it is presented I am perfectly entitled to say that the evidence is on my side.

But again, before you supply it, remember that evidence that only you and other people who are already inclined towards believing can see is not actually evidence, it's called lowering your standard of evidence because you want something to be true.

Btw, it's not dangerous if they're right

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

.....Frankly it seems to me that generally atheists feel much more certain in their worldview than theists do (as John Gray also observes in Straw Dogs). Hence all the talk of having "evidence" on their side.

Excuse me. What evidence? And evidence for what? What is this world view that we are so certain in?

Húrin wrote: »

Classic case was the recent discussion I had with others on this forum who were claiming that science favours their atheism. Do you not see how such certainty that one has the authority of reason and science on their side as being dangerous?

Nope?

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Whatever type of cheese you want it to be. That's the wonder of christianity apparently.

There is no Biblical support for God being made of cheese. There's a difference that you are overlooking, between interpreting texts and making them up entirely.

There is one correct interpretation of the bible and that is the interpretation that was meant when it was written. Anything else is wishful thinking and fuzzy reasoning.

That is why those who interpret the Bible are trying to find that correct meaning. Exegetics leave out their wishful thinking.

If it's up to me to decide what is moral, if I am not bound by the morality described in the bible and if I am capable of coming to perfectly moral conclusions independently of the bible, then what purpose does God serve exactly, more than say Aristotle who also philosophised about morality?

The main purpose of the Bible seems to be to let Christians know that they are forgiven and to be saved.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You knew it was wrong to kill, steal, rape, pillage and cheat long before you heard of Jesus Christ. Most of it's built into your genes and the rest you got from your parents and peers

*bangs head against wall*

Why do atheists repeatedly fail to get this? Christians do not assert that nobody thought it was wrong to kill and steal before the Bible was written. In fact this is the opening point of Mere Christianity. Lewis asserts, approximately, that God wrote this morality into our genes.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know you don't because luckily enough you picked the good parts to focus on. The point is that other people do and if they didn't have the authority of God apparently backing them up they might not. No?

The authority of reason and even vague ideas about freedom (French Revolutionaries, Americans, etc) have historically provided enough authority for people to violently force their views onto other people.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes you are! You need to learn to give yourself some credit and realise you came to these moral conclusions all on your own and the sky fairy had nothing to do with it

See, in this exchange you come across as being much more certain in your naturalism than CDfm does in his theism. This contrasts to the usual self-righteous claim that theists are frighteningly certain of their beliefs, and that atheists are humbly open to being wrong.

Zillah wrote: »

religion has shown itself to be nothing more than a vapid distraction for humanity.

Here we go with the ignorant analysis of history again. And the false dichotomy of Religion vs science, so easily slipped into. All the crap that you have seen refuted a hundred times here but persist in talking about because it serves your (by your own admission, hateful) agenda.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

The very fact that you and I are communicating over the internet
It must be so liberating to not be.

So the internet is liberating is it.

An atheist would say that:p

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

There is no Biblical support for God being made of cheese. There's a difference that you are overlooking, between interpreting texts and making them up entirely.

That is why those who interpret the Bible are trying to find that correct meaning. Exegetics leave out their wishful thinking.

The main purpose of the Bible seems to be to let Christians know that they are forgiven and to be saved.

I fully agree. I was pointing out the flaws in what CDfm was saying which you can also see.

Húrin wrote: »

*bangs head against wall*

Why do atheists repeatedly fail to get this? Christians do not assert that nobody thought it was wrong to kill and steal before the Bible was written. In fact this is the opening point of Mere Christianity. Lewis asserts, approximately, that God wrote this morality into our genes.

Then what purpose does religion serve if the morality is built into our genes?

Also, that's a case of invoking a God where none is required, the same way people say God guides evolution, a process which requires no guiding.

Húrin wrote: »

The authority of reason and even vague ideas about freedom (French Revolutionaries, Americans, etc) have historically provided enough authority for people to violently force their views onto other people.

I'm sure they have. I never said that religion was the only thing that gave people false confidence

Húrin wrote: »

See, in this exchange you come across as being much more certain in your naturalism than CDfm does in his theism. This contrasts to the usual self-righteous claim that theists are frighteningly certain of their beliefs, and that atheists are humbly open to being wrong.

That statement is supported by mountains of evidence which CS Lewis also accepts. I said he didn't need religion to tell him right from wrong and CS Lewis agrees when he says it's built into our genes. We just disagree on how it got there

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem is when they don't think they're deviating from God's will because they have misinterpreted it, or quite often interpreted it correctly, such as people who can find support for being against women's rights and homosexuality and for slavery in the bible.

Then let those who don't find support for the above refute those who do. It seems that a lot of atheists want to believe that the former group are interpreting wishfully, because they want to make the Bible look as bad as possible.

Then by all means supply me with this evidence as I asked you before. What I am certain of is that people have been asking theists for the evidence for thousands of years and it has yet to be presented. Until it is presented I am perfectly entitled to say that the evidence is on my side.

But again, before you supply it, remember that evidence that only you and other people who are already inclined towards believing can see is not actually evidence, it's called lowering your standard of evidence because you want something to be true.

I which case you are doing the same thing as the theists. They say that the evidence for their beliefs is there, but you can't, or choose not to, see it. You say that the evidence for your beliefs is there, but you can't, or choose not to, see it. You are lowering the standard of evidence as much as theists.

My position remains that science supports not atheism, naturalism nor religion but agnosticism. However even writing statements like this makes me uncomfortable, because the implicit agreement between us is that science is the ultimate authority on truth. Which is very naive.

Btw, it's not dangerous if they're right

Actually, the correctness of either side has no bearing on how dangerous they are.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Then let those who don't find support for the above refute those who do. It seems that a lot of atheists want to believe that the former group are interpreting wishfully, because they want to make the Bible look as bad as possible.

A lot of atheists believe that people are interpreting wishfully because we have seen interpretations of the bible that bear little or no resemblance to what's actually written in it. Also there's the randomly picking of parts, saying these are metaphors and these are literal facts. Also there's the outright denial of blatant contradictions in it. It's not that I want to believe it, there is ample evidence supporting the belief

Húrin wrote: »

I which case you are doing the same thing as the theists. They say that the evidence for their beliefs is there, but you can't, or choose not to, see it. You say that the evidence for your beliefs is there, but you can't, or choose not to, see it. You are lowering the standard of evidence as much as theists.

I am not making a claim to be substantiated. My stated position on the origins of the universe is "I don't know". You are the one making the claim and you are the only one who has to present evidence.

Húrin wrote: »

My position remains that science supports not atheism, naturalism nor religion but agnosticism. However even writing statements like this makes me uncomfortable, because the implicit agreement between us is that science is the ultimate authority on truth. Which is very naive.

The scientific method says that before a claim can be accepted, evidence must be presented for it. Other schools of thought suggest otherwise, that claims can be accepted because of gut feelings or because of what must be true. Therefore the scientific method supports atheism right up until you provide the evidence for your claims.

Húrin wrote: »

Actually, the correctness of either side has no bearing on how dangerous they are.

Ummmmm yes it does. If I think that I am carrying out the lord's work and I actually am, I can do naught but good. But if I am wrong I could do untold damage.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

Then let those who don't find support for the above refute those who do. It seems that a lot of atheists want to believe that the former group are interpreting wishfully, because they want to make the Bible look as bad as possible.

You don't need to make it look bad man.

Húrin wrote: »

I which case you are doing the same thing as the theists. They say that the evidence for their beliefs is there, but you can't, or choose not to, see it. You say that the evidence for your beliefs is there, but you can't, or choose not to, see it. You are lowering the standard of evidence as much as theists.

I'm confused again which belief that I as an atheist hold requires evidence? I'd really love to know. Plus effectively what your saying here is that we're just as bad as you are and that doesn't really advance the conversation.

Húrin wrote: »

My position remains that science supports not atheism, naturalism nor religion but agnosticism.

Science supports the agnosticism of which deity? Wait a second all of them, which when you think about it is kinda like atheism.

Húrin wrote: »

However even writing statements like this makes me uncomfortable, because the implicit agreement between us is that science is the ultimate authority on truth. Which is very naive....

So certain are you?<yodaesque voice> I'd love to know why you think that to be the case? And also a proposal as to what else provides us with truth?

Sam Vimes

On a side note, I wish people would stop quoting CS Lewis. I read his take on miracles at the recommendation of Jakkass and it was the greatest load of bullsh!t I've ever read

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am not making a claim to be substantiated. My stated position on the origins of the universe is "I don't know". You are the one making the claim and you are the only one who has to present evidence.

Qft pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wish people would stop quoting CS Lewis. I read his take on miracles at the recommendation of Jakkass and it was the greatest load of bullsh!t I've ever read

Believe me, you've seen nothing 'til you try The Screwtape Letters!

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I fully agree. I was pointing out the flaws in what CDfm was saying which you can also see.

I think you expect me to have an in built gay prejudice which I dont have and nothing overruled that. Its just not consistant with my beliefs.

To express that the essence of God as good in moral issues is a belief and I accept you dont believe.

Then what purpose does religion serve if the morality is built into our genes?

Of course I have never said that non believers are not moral etc or that people are not capable of ethical thinking. Just that as Christians we use God and the Bible as our source.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I think you expect me to have an in built gay prejudice which I dont have and nothing overruled that. Its just not consistant with my beliefs.

No I don't expect you to have a moral objection to homosexuality because not everyone is born with or develops that particular moral belief and as I said earlier you don't actually get your moral beliefs from the bible, despite claims to the contrary.

The reason I know you don't get your moral beliefs from the bible is that if you did, you would have a moral objection to homosexuality. If you're going to take moral lessons from the bible as a christian, believing that they came from God, it's not up to you to take the parts about loving thy neighbour and ignore the parts about homosexuality. That is the act of someone who doesn't actually believe it came from God.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Of course I have never said that non believers are not moral etc or that people are not capable of ethical thinking. Just that as Christians we use God and the Bible as our source.

But if it's built into your genes then you're not using the bible as your source

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Here we go with the ignorant analysis of history again.

I'm not even talking about history chica, as I've explained in detail before, we can see even now the legacy of vapid thoughts and small minded bigotry religion has left in it's wake.

And the false dichotomy of Religion vs science, so easily slipped into.

What exactly is false about it? Religion makes baseless and unfalsifiable claims about the nature of the universe and actively encourages belief without reason. That is absolute anti-science.

All the crap that you have seen refuted a hundred times here but persist in talking about because it serves your (by your own admission, hateful) agenda.

I'm sorry, you must be thinking of different arguments, and a different forum, and a different poster.

Well ok I'll concede the hate thing. Don't forget scorn, derision and contempt too.

*bangs head against wall*

Why do atheists repeatedly fail to get this? Christians do not assert that nobody thought it was wrong to kill and steal before the Bible was written. In fact this is the opening point of Mere Christianity. Lewis asserts, approximately, that God wrote this morality into our genes.

Maybe, just maybe atheists got the idea that Christians think the Bible is the source of morality because Christians constantly assert this. Now you can claim that they shouldn't, but they do, all the time. You can probably find a hundred posts on this very forum where some Christian has argued that the Bible is the source of our morality, and that without it we'd all be raping savages (and that I as an atheist am no better).

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But if it's built into your genes then you're not using the bible as your source

What happened to memes

If everything was genetic we would come out of the womb walking and talking

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't expect you to have a moral objection to homosexuality because not everyone is born with or develops that particular moral belief and as I said earlier you don't actually get your moral beliefs from the bible, despite claims to the contrary.

The reason I know you don't get your moral beliefs from the bible is that if you did, you would have a moral objection to homosexuality. If you're going to take moral lessons from the bible as a christian, believing that they came from God, it's not up to you to take the parts about loving thy neighbour and ignore the parts about homosexuality. That is the act of someone who doesn't actually believe it came from God.

It allows us to have tolerence and apply it to our individual lifes.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

What happened to memes

If everything was genetic we would come out of the womb walking and talking

I didn't say everything was genetic and I didn't say anything about memes either, you brought them up. Part of your moral code does come from your parents and peers as I said

edit: and we certainly would not come out of the womb walking and talking. Our bodies aren't developed enough to walk but we have the capacity to do it once our bodies have developed. In a similar vein, we have the capactiy to learn to talk but the english language isn't in our genes

CDfm wrote: »

It allows us to have tolerence and apply it to our individual lifes.

So people who don't read the bible aren't tolerant? And if they are and managed to be so without the bible, how is it the bible that allows you to be tolerant?