Although anecdotal, I’d agree with this-at least from my experience and research on the web.
What on earth does that mean?
Sorry, I missed that one amidst the flurry.
However, after reading it over, I have no idea what to say.
Seems like we’re speaking different languages.
If you’d like to repost something without having all the discussion broken up by dueling quotes, I’ll be happy to respond if I’m able.
Simply as an aside, of course certain beliefs are superior to others. A belief that is in accord with reality is better than a belief that is pure bullshit.
Their vews are superior to your views.
Their views have proof, your views do not.
You are allowed to hold whatever view you feel like, but that doesn’t make it factual.
True as far as it goes, but you forgot one important point. Once a hypothesis has been crafted, and even after it graduates to the status of theory, scientists continue to test it against new observations and discoveries. A religious person does this by explaining away the new observations, or by warping the meaning of words to include them as if they had been accounted for in the first place. Discussions of how the order of Genesis is an accurate account of the actual order of the development of the earth and life is a classic example. In science, you change the theory, in religion, you change the facts.
If that is all you know about God, I trust you do not attend any church, and do not claim to have evidence of God ever interacting with his creation - in fact you don’t seem to have evidence that God is even a creator. Certainly he can be all the things you say he is, and just have watched the singularity form, however it did. He might have the ability to get involved, but that does not imply he ever did. He might have perfect knowledge, but that does not imply that he has ever acted on it. It certainly does not indicate that your God has opinions on gay marriage, my sex life, or who will win the World Series - let alone if there is salvation, and what you must do to earn it. So, do you really believe in this God, or do you believe in a slightly better defined God?
Keep in mind that a grocery store owner may well put “Jesus Saves” on his bags; he’s free to do that; it’s a private business. We have the freedom to profess, or not profess whatever faith. But you shouldn’t think of Americans as all being stamped out copies of the same model. We’re not all warmongering, Bible thumping fanatics. Most of us, probably, despise the expression “Judeo-Christian values”, if only because the people who say it are usually trying, very incorrectly, to conflate Fundamentalist Christianity with the motives and intentions of the Founding Fathers. It also suggests that other religions have less desireable values.
Also recall the peculiarities of our political system. Rural people, on average, are more religious than city dwellers. But rural states that have small populations get to send just as many Senators–two–as large urban states like New York and California. We tend to get a lot of rural state Senators who become very prominent in Washington. For instance, that’s how Ashcroft started, IIRC. They start spouting God and Jesus in the national forum, and then the rest of the world thinks that’s how we all are! Trust me, we’re not. You should come to L.A., or San Francisco, or New York, and see for yourself.
I can understand why you would say that of most religious people, but it isn’t true of me and of others I know. I am questioning every day, and from time to time I change my mind about this or that article of faith based on my experience, that is, my empirical observations. As just one example, I learned from my experience and observations at this board that God Himself does not differentiate between theists and atheists, as those are mere intellectual positions. The only thing that does not change is my faith that He is true — just as your faith in science does not waver. I too have a faith in science, in that I find it to be the ideal epistemic system for examining data with respect to the physical universe. I think that the difference between us lies, at least partly, in which we believe to be trivial and which we believe to be significant between the material and the spiritual.
I was about to correct myself to saying fundamentalists - but I’d be wrong. Even moderate churches keep their basic tenets even when they have been falsified - though they do have the decency of acknowledging the facts. The current Catholic view of Adam and Eve is a good example. I agree that my statement does not apply to you, since you do not have a historical set of tenets to defend. A deist who has constructed a belief system that is unfalsifiable by nature, will also never have this problem.
I don’t have faith in science, by the way. I’d give it up tomorrow if I saw a very, very, convincing demonstration of magic or the supernatural. I’d love to live in a universe like that of stories from Unknown, where magic works in a somewhat rational way. Don’t expect to ever see this, but it would be cool. So I think the real difference is that I can see how all the so-called spirtual things can be explained in a material way, not that I consider them to be trivial.
You and I would do much better over a cup of coffee or a beer. I’m not getting what your objections are, and you’re not getting what I’m saying, probably because of my poor explanations. I think I express and grok better in person.
To me, a good definition separates the universe into 2 classes - those which fit the definition and those which do not.
For instance, we could divide up the universe into infinite things and non-infinite things. If we had a rule which did that well, we’d have a good definition of ‘infinite.’
I have no problem with a definition that only specifies that it fit 3 infinite criteria, and say nothing else about it. If whatever you’ve got meets those three criteria, it’s in. Otherwise it’s not. That’s a rule I can work with.
I don’t get why we need to know what meets those 3 infinite criteria. What is without limits? I don’t care. Anything you present.
Let me ask this, which may force something to a head: how would you define the word infinite? Is a definition of infinite possible, that isn’t just a negative definition?
Let me address a couple of specific points.
>Infinite sets of what? What exactly are you saying is infinite?
The set of infinite sets. I’ve got a set, in which I’ve collected all the infinite sets. For instance, one element of this set is the set of whole numbers. Another member of this set is the set of all fractions with a denominator of ‘2’. Another is the digital representation of PI. [strike]Another is the amount of miscommunication in this thread[/strike] etc. In passing, yes, the set is a member of itself, since there are an infinite number of infinite sets out there.
So it’s an infinite sets, and each thing within it is infinite. I mention this set because you took issue with the set of whole numbers, saying that each number wasn’t infinite. I hoped my new example would get you to point out what the real issue was with describing God as infinite, because I just don’t get the problem.
>Additionally the attempted definitions you’ve given are paradoxical; take omnipotence for example: Can an omnipotent thing both exist and not exist at the same time?
Aristotle would say no. Buddha would say yes. I say I don’t know. I’m not smart enough to say for sure. But the question does have meaning.
>The difference is, in non-euclidean geometry you are describing the attributes of something; a line goes on forever, you are subscribing a negative definition onto something that is already defined.
No, I specifically keep talking about non-Euclidean geometry because I’m not talking about something already defined (nitpick: points and lines are never formall defined in Euclidean geometry - only described). In non-Euclidean geometry you can talk about points and lines and never say what you’re talking about. Forget what a Euclidean line looks like. It may as well look like a zebra. It doesn’t freaking matter in non-Euclidean. You’re better off not envisioning anything, because it leads to too much false knowledge.
The evangelicals think that most, if not all, atheists think exactly the same as the OP of this thread. And they are not going to take it anymore. It took them a long time to realize that they have the voting power to, in their view, fight the ‘creeping atheism’.
I don’t really have the energy to get into this convoluted thread, but this line popped out at me:
This is too funny. I really think it needs to be someone’s sig line. Ghanima, would you mind it if I used it? 
And actually, this is an interesting point:
Don’t assume that every religion believes you are going to hell. Don’t assume that every believer is pitying you for your lack of belief. There are all sorts of religions, and all sorts of believers, and all sorts of interpretations. You just don’t know, and you can’t speak for all religions. (And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe that non-believers go to hell. That’s just what I was taught.)
Okay, carry on.
Quite simply … YES.
Maybe “idiots” is too harsh a word, but definitely in need of help. It is logic like this that has gotten humanity to the low point it is at now. ie … Making Friends > Unhappy Truth. I am embarrassed by my fellow man continuing to fall into this pattern. Every day, even here in the alleged most advanced society on earth, people who believe in Reason, Logic, Facts, and Objective Observation are passed off as the ones who are crazy or mean because the vast majority happen to share the same favorite fairy tale. Better yet … a fairy tale with vast amounts of cruelty, injustice, ignorance, and lies.
You might as well have said … “So all the people who believe 2+2=5 are idiots huh? You are not going to make friends …”. In a world where 9 out of 10 people believed 2+2=5 … 2+2 would still equal 4.
yosemite, go ahead and use that as a sig iffin’ you want. I don’t mind. 
And yes, you caught me, I should have qualified my statement. That is to say “according to all religions that have a hell” I stand corrected. But I doubt there’s any religion that believes in a hell that doesn’t believe I’m going there. We’re talking a few more “sins” that just being a non-believer. Thanks for the sentiment, though.
capacitor: “The creeping atheism,” huh? If only it were the “raging torrent of atheism”…oh well, I can still hope.
Thanks. I just might do that.
You’re missing my point. Not every religion or believer (that believes in a hell) believes that they know who is going to hell and who isn’t. I have no idea if you are going to hell, and I certainly am not assuming that I know who is going to heaven. I may have a few hunches, but that’s not the same as being sure about it.
I have no idea whether Charles Manson is going to hell. It looks quite likely that he will, and from my perspective, it looks like he’d be a prime candidate, but I don’t know. His life is not over yet, so who knows what will happen in the future? I assume that you are not as depraved as Charles Manson (;)) so it follows that I don’t know if you’re going to hell either. And I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Without getting too much into the specifics of my personal faith, there are other dynamics going on with the belief of heaven and hell, which make it not quite as cut and dried as some might think. But really, I don’t want to start a hijack and have no interest in discussing the specifics of any belief at this time.
Not an attack, but an over-heated defense. I don’t recall starting a “Ghanima Sucks!” thread, nor a “Fuck all the atheists!” thread. I’m not sure why your OP is acceptable venting, whereas my response crosses the line into a shrill attack. Apparently the rules are different for me; I was not aware of that.
I’m not sure how I could possibly explain to someone why it’s not cool to look on other people with disgust. I kind of thought that was one of those basic human things that people just “got,” and didn’t require much explanation. If it’s all just a natural conclusion and it’s no big deal, then why start this thread at all? If somone comes onto the board and says “Women are disgusting idiots” or “I pity the bisexuals for being so disgusting” or “Fucking East Bay young adults oh how I hate them!” do you just say, “cool, whatever, man; it’s natural for him to come to that conclusion” and let it slide? I’ll just say that I’m skeptical.
Because I have that basic level of respect for you (use of the f-word and references to blowing steam up your ass notwithstanding) that says I’m confident that you’ve found a belief system – religious or not – that works for you. I’m not so arrogant as to assume, much less say outright, that you are too stupid to be able to reconcile spirituality with science; instead I assume that you have no need for spirituality.
I don’t object to anyone’s being atheist; I object to that arrogance. And I object to the total lack of respect for other people that says your way is the correct way and everyone else is an idiot. Whether it’s a fundamentalist Christian saying that everyone who doesn’t believe as he does is going to hell and deserves to have his rights stripped away, or it’s an atheist saying that everyone who believes in religion is an idiot and deserves to be insulted and mocked, it’s all the same to me. It’s intolerance.
Disagree, agree, agree*, makes no sense. I have every right to be angry when somebody calls me an idiot, because I’m not.
Heh, as a tangent, I like when people say ‘grok’.
(Was it Mr. Valentine?)
To be honest, I think infinity is a concept and not an actual reality.
Here’s where I disagree, I don’t think anything can have those attributes. I see no evidence for it and I wouldn’t even begin to know what sort of being could because they would violate the axioms of logic.
I don’t think such a thing is possible in reality; now, I’m willing to admit that I could be totally wrong, but from where I am, I can’t see it.
Maybe this will help; infinity just by itself doesn’t make any sense to me. In order for the concept to make sense I have to apply it to something; say a number. Conceptually you can always add a number to another number, forever, but in this universe you can’t do that-if for no other reason then that the universe will probably run out eventually and you’ll still be counting.
In any event, my point is that I can say that something could be conceptually infinite-but I’d have to know something about that something-you know?
I guess you could say that I don’t think qualia exists.
Here’s the thing, numbers are a description of how much you have of something (roughly); a number doesn’t exist on it’s own. You can’t point and say there are two, look at it. Instead you say there are two ______.
I can’t seem to find the correct word, but numbers are concepts, not ‘realities’ in the sense that rocks are realities. They refer to an amount of something else.
The problem isn’t necessarily that God is or isn’t infinite; the problem is that in order to say something is infinite you need to know about that something. Numbers are concepts, as I’ve said, they refer to an amount of something-they do not actually exist in reality - ie, you can’t describe the number one without referring to something in reality, there is one car, one horse, etc. In order to exist, “one” has to exist as something.
So in that sense, “one” doesn’t exist-it’s just a concept that unless it’s applied to something in reality won’t make any sense. Can you have “one” of something that doesn’t exist?
Additionally, as I’ve said, I don’t think infinities can actually exist outside of the concepts, but this isn’t the major problem-IMO-in accepting God belief.
The meaning is contradictory or senseless IMO. The way I view it is, that if you accept that premise (that something can both exist and not exist at the same time) you are in effect throwing out the law of identity and if you throw that out, then everything else becomes incoherent (but since things are coherent, we can assume it’s a fundamental axiom).
Fair enough, but I suppose my point is that ‘lines’ and ‘points’ don’t actually exist on their own, they have to be something first, right?
Additionally both lines and points do have definitions that you can point to and say ‘that’s a line’ or ‘that’s a point’. Can you point to something and say ‘that’s God’?
Erm…that’s my…um…‘point’… 
Again though, I’m not claiming to be right or that I have all the answers-all I’m claiming is that this is the way I see it (or rather, the way I think I see it). You might not need a clear-cut definable term (in the way I mean it), but I on the other hand do, because otherwise I feel the belief in that undefined something doesn’t make sense.
Can you even believe in something that both exists and doesn’t exist?
The problem of God is even further compounded because God is supposed to be immaterial and supernatural, both of which are concepts that have no evidence for them, IMO.
I just want to pipe up and say that Meatros is completely owning this thread right now.
No, you and other posters are unclear on why I insist on the distinction between fact and theory. The “detective work” of science yields both facts and conclusions that tie together those facts. Those conclusions are theories. Pointing out that these are theories does not imply that they are invalid conclusions, nor does it say that it must leave room for suppositions that have absolutely no scientific merit, such as creationism, just because they’re different. What it does, however, is reinforce the skepticism that is at the heart of the scientific method.
When you quote a passage that says “Evolution is accepted as fact… therefore it is a fact,” you are crossing the line into dogma. Dogma has no place in science. Neither does arrogance. Neither do value judgements. In the case of evolution, the distinction between fact and theory has almost no practical value, because it is a theory that is so overwhelmingly supported by observable facts that it is for all intents and purposes true. But the distinction has overwhelming symbolic value: it is only through a willingness to challenge everything that we think is true and accept the idea that it might not be true, that we are able to learn anything. When you treat assumptions as facts, you have closed your mind to the idea that those assumptions might not be valid.
When you turn science into religion – with statements such as “God doesn’t exist because there is a complete lack of evidence that he does exist” – then you have violated the roles of each.
I “get upset” because you quote Bible passages to me as if that proves your argument, when I have said repeatedly that I don’t subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Again, you have a definition of what it means to be Christian, I don’t fit that, therefore I’m inconsistent, a bad Christian, and an asshole. Even though I’ve explained many times, including in this thread, what I mean when I call myself a Christian.
And it’s that kind of jumping on what you think I’m saying instead of what I’m actually saying that makes you look arrogant. I mentioned my regional affiliation not as an attack on your Southern Pride, but in a desperate attempt to figure out which group it was that has a stereotypical representation that I’m not holding to. I would’ve assumed Christianity, but you were talking about a sense of self-righteousness and superiority, judgement and condemnation, that I don’t exhibit.
I wasn’t aware that saying “I’m not an idiot, because I understand the roles of faith and science and that they’re not incompatible, and I won’t accept anyone telling me that I’m stupid for believing this” was egregious arrogance and self-aggrandizement. I’ll make a note of it, and in the future I’ll just let people call me stupid. You’ll let me know when I swing back around to being self-loathing and lacking confidence, won’t you? Because I depend on that.
Clever. So tell me this: Where in Origin of Species does it say “Fuck Christians?” I’d look it up in my own copy, but I burned it at my last revival.
Wow. That is spectacular. So let me see if I’m following the discussion so far: I don’t fit in with your definition of Christianity, therefore I’m being inconsistent, insincere, not a true Christian, and lack faith. Because I don’t respond to “Fuck Jesus” with a beatific smile and nod, and because I respond to someone’s calling me an asshole by saying “fuck” and telling him not to call me an asshole, that means that I’m not being true to my religious beliefs. And when I claim that I have a belief system and spirituality that work for me, that is judgemental, superior self-aggrandizement and hypocrisy. Which you are guilty of as well, but it’s okay because you don’t claim to be Christian.
Wow. I really should look into this whole atheism thing; it sounds so much easier. Kind of like this:
Weird, I always conceived of it not as a “get out of sin free” card, but as “humility.” It’s a neat concept, gobear; you should check it out.
You’re not telling me not to be a Christian, you’re telling me how to be a Christian; what it should mean when I call myself that. Apparently my definition of what it means to be a Christian, and my understanding of and relationship with God, have little if anything to do with it.
And your “why can’t you be more like Polycarp” only serves to increase my respect for the man. If he can have arguments with you that don’t end in trainwrecks, he’s got a better temper and more patience than I’ll ever have.
And if you treated your religion the same way that you do here – with a sense of arrogance and insistence on prescribing the one correct path for everyone else to follow or reject outright, with a sense of judgement and disdain for those who don’t fit in with your views – then I can see how it would’ve been unsatisfying for you. You claim to understand what I mean when I say “I’m a Christian,” but you still don’t.
I will keep an eye out for the book, although I fail to see the relevance of the quote or your passage afterwards. Or for that matter, why you would insist on holding me to a standard of religion and behavior that you willingly and in fact pridefully maintain that you don’t hold to yourself. You tell me your definition of what it means to be a Christian, you judge me by calling me a false witness, insult me by claiming that my love and faith are a “sham” when I don’t hold to that definition, and say that you’re exempt because you’ve already rejected that definition for yourself, and somehow that ends up with my being angry and arrogant.
So quoting me, calling me an asshole and telling me that I’m a sham of a Christian wasn’t addressing me directly? My mistake. There I go again, getting all defensive and letting the claws out.
See, at this point, I’m just confused. We’ve already covered how I’m not being a homosexual correctly, and now I’m having to learn how I’m not a proper Christian either. And I don’t understand love and faith. Somehow I’ve managed to be not only insecure, self-loathing, lacking confidence, and desperate for validation, but also shrill, egotistical, self-righteous, and judgemental. I shouldn’t listen to your opinion on how to act, but here’s how I should conduct myself in both dating and religious circles, including a bibliography. Because you know what it means to be a Christian, I’m a hypocritical sham of one who doesn’t understand true love and faith; at the same time, it’s wrong to impose your own religious beliefs on other people. And oh yeah – apparently, I’m really inconsistent, too.
So how about we reach an agreement, gobear? I’ll agree to stay out of religious discussions until I’m better able to explain my spirituality and faith to people without telling them to go fuck themselves. In return, you’ll agree not to respond to my posts on this message board until you’re able to respond to one without turning it into a nasty, bitter personal attack and then giving me some two-bit psychoanalysis based on your interpretation of my posting history. I think that’d be swell.
Don’t mind me for sticking my ass ( ) in your conversation with Gobear, SolGrundy, but I wanted to address a few points;
You seem to be saying a very similar thing to what has been said; the fact is that things evolve, or more precisely, gene pools evolve. The fact is that we are all related (DNA, morphology, etc, etc). Both of these are the facts of evolution.
Now, why is this so? Why do things evolve (mainly natural selection), that is theory. Theories are explanations.
Actually everything in science is based on reasonable certianty, including ‘facts’. You are correct though, in the sense that science is tentative, it must be in order to be a fluid evolving branch of knowledge.
I disagree, and to use a pertinant example, here’s why I disagree: Scientists don’t argue over whether or not evolution occured-that’s established as ‘fact’. What they argue about is the theory on why/how often it occurs.
Take for example Stephen Gould v. Dawkins. Gould believes that evolution occured via the process of punctuated equilibrium (ie, there are spurts of evolution), while Dawkins believes that evolution occured gradually (ie, it was continious).
Neither man is arguing over whether evolution occured; they are arguing over the theory of evolution.
Actually…to be precise…I guess Dawkin’s is still arguing while Gould went off to order a whopper with dirt…
Actually science continually tests evolution, by attempting to build off of previous discoveries. If a new discovery comes to light that doesn’t fit with the darwinian mold, yet offers a more compelling theory (that incorporates all the data) then the darwinian mold is tossed out and the scientist who discovered it becomes the next ‘Darwin’.
There in lies the rub; God is outside of the realm of science, necessarily so as God is supposed to be supernatural. How do we know that God exists? How could there be evidence of God? Furthermore, what does it even mean to say that God is outside of nature?
So no, you can’t use science to rule out God, but that is because God didn’t metaphorically come to a testable table to begin with. God remains in the realm of the vague concept.
Thanks, coming from you (a poster whom I consider very intelligent) I take this a high compliment.
I don’t think I’m ‘owning’ the thread, so to speak, but I am enjoying the conversation. I’m getting to use that lump of gray matter three feet above my ass, so I figure even if I’m totally wrong, *I’m on the right track in trying to figure things out… *
Once, when asked about how punctuated equilibrium was being refered to as “evolution by jerks.” he responded “Why not? The alternative is evolution by creeps.”