Why Do People Get Defensive About God?

Great Debates
441

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I can’t think of a proper response to this abject ignorance that doesn’t involve making you repeat the first twelve years of school.
[/QUOTE]

What a shocker. **lekatt ** reveals himself to be ignorant of science. A few weeks ago, when he was spouting ignorant nonsense about how evolution is not supported by evidence, I challenged him to give a non-evolutionary explanation for just one bit of data supporting evolution. I remember the example I asked him to explain is why whales, which live in the sea, are sometimes born with legs and feet. Of course, he couldn’t explain it; but his mind is so partitioned that it didn’t even slow him down. He is incapable of stopping and considering competing evidence; it’s like he has a kind of epistemic blindness. I really wish **lekatt ** would just stay out of these threads, since he has nothing to contribute, and only ever succeeds in derailing them with his ignorant bloviations.

442

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Science is outnumbered 9 to 1 in this country. The religious have the votes to put their people in office any time they wish. Science deals with material things and religion with spiritual things. They both are needed, and many scientists still believe in God.
[/QUOTE]
You assume it’s an either/or proposition. Your mistake is in assuming that nine out of ten Americans are unable to hold two opposing thoughts in their heads at the same time. You also assume that nine out of ten Americans cling to a strictly literal interpretation of their religions. I don’t have a direct cite for it, buy my understanding is that this is incorrect; only a very small yet very vocal minority holds that view of their assorted religions.

And contrary to all that **Der Trihs ** believes, there are a great many of us who understand fully that our religion is not compatible with the exploitation of science that make our world as comfortable as it is. My spirituality is nothing more than a recognition that there is much out there that is beyond current scientific explanation.

443

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
You talk as if scientists conspire to make shit up, and we should regard their conclusions with healthy skepticism. Strange. And yet you write this post on a computer, and send it out over the internet for others to read. It’s almost as though what scientists were doing actually worked and produced functioning results. What could possibly account for that?
[/QUOTE]

OK, lets think about this. Jesus came with a message He said would help people live their lives more abundantly. He started no religion, He was often criticized by the religious of the time. It was others that formed the churches, and decided the beliefs and doctrine for them.

Galileo and others wanted to know the truth about material things and studied them, they formed no organization called science. It was others that formed the scientific organizations and schools. It was others that decided just how the scientific method would be perfomed, how the studies would be done. Us humans love to build belief systems and all belief systems are formed by the consensus of man.

So both religion and science were formed in the same way to find truth. Then, as the nature of man, the goal changed from truth to control.

Both religion and science have some illogical doctrines whose purpose is only to protect the faithful from aberrent ideas and evidence not believed in by the faithful.

As for science and the computer I am typing this on, I believe a kid named Steven Jobs was the creator. Much of what science claims was done by people who never heard of science.

Oh, well, I have tried to break through the indoctrination rituals.

444

[QUOTE=lekatt]
OK, lets think about this. Jesus came with a message He said would help people live their lives more abundantly. He started no religion, He was often criticized by the religious of the time. It was others that formed the churches, and decided the beliefs and doctrine for them.

Galileo and others wanted to know the truth about material things and studied them, they formed no organization called science. It was others that formed the scientific organizations and schools. It was others that decided just how the scientific method would be perfomed, how the studies would be done. Us humans love to build belief systems and all belief systems are formed by the consensus of man.

So both religion and science were formed in the same way to find truth. Then, as the nature of man, the goal changed from truth to control.

Both religion and science have some illogical doctrines whose purpose is only to protect the faithful from aberrent ideas and evidence not believed in by the faithful.

As for science and the computer I am typing this on, I believe a kid named Steven Jobs was the creator. Much of what science claims was done by people who never heard of science.

Oh, well, I have tried to break through the indoctrination rituals.
[/QUOTE]

This reads like a National Lampoon parody out of the 70’s.

445

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
What a shocker. **lekatt ** reveals himself to be ignorant of science. A few weeks ago, when he was spouting ignorant nonsense about how evolution is not supported by evidence, I challenged him to give a non-evolutionary explanation for just one bit of data supporting evolution. I remember the example I asked him to explain is why whales, which live in the sea, are sometimes born with legs and feet. Of course, he couldn’t explain it; but his mind is so partitioned that it didn’t even slow him down. He is incapable of stopping and considering competing evidence; it’s like he has a kind of epistemic blindness. I really wish **lekatt ** would just stay out of these threads, since he has nothing to contribute, and only ever succeeds in derailing them with his ignorant bloviations.
[/QUOTE]

Imagine that, it is a shocker. The bones of evolution are evidence of the species and not evidence of evolution which is an idea, a theory. As for my knowledge of science, probably as good as anyone’s. I have read the books of Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkin, and quite a few others. But they don’t seem to say science knows everything as most posting on this board believe.

446

[QUOTE=lekatt]
OK, lets think about this. Jesus came with a message He said would help people live their lives more abundantly. He started no religion, He was often criticized by the religious of the time.
[/quote]
He didn’t need to form a religion; he was part of an already existent religion.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
So both religion and science were formed in the same way to find truth.
[/quote]
No, religion is and always has been the enemy of truth. Religion is all about fantasy supplanting reality, about the denial of truth. It is the opposite and enemy of science by it’s nature.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Both religion and science have some illogical doctrines whose purpose is only to protect the faithful from aberrant ideas and evidence not believed in by the faithful.
[/quote]
Religion is all about “illogical doctrines”. Science occasionally suffers from them, but they are always overthrown due to the nature of science. Religion cherishes such illogic. Science is not about faith, nor are those who practice it “the faithful”.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
As for science and the computer I am typing this on, I believe a kid named Steven Jobs was the creator.
[/quote]
Who used principles discovered by science, not religion. If he had tried to use religion, he would have failed as religion always fails, at anything save tyranny and exploitation; that, it is good at.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Oh, well, I have tried to break through the indoctrination rituals.
[/QUOTE]
No, you are simply trying to push your particular fantasy upon us, and failing badly.

“Theory” and “idea” are not at all the same. as evolution is an observed fact, not a theory. The theory is about the details of how it works, not about it’s existence.

447

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
This reads like a National Lampoon parody out of the 70’s.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that magazine was great, it was uncanny how the authors went straight to the root truth of what they wrote about. It would not have been funny otherwise. I take that as a compliment, thanks.

448

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Is there any chance you’ll address the more substantive part of my response?
[/QUOTE]
Seems like the answer is “no”. Figures.

449

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
It’s clear from your post that you have thoughts on the theory of evolution’s role in defensiveness about God. Look at the title of the thread where you posted it. Is there any chance you’ll address the more substantive part of my response?

Do you differentiate between the role of the theory of evolution and that of the germ theory of disease in light of the topic here? If so, how and why?
[/QUOTE]

Evolution or not makes no difference concerning God. I don’t know how the world and man came into existence, and don’t really care. It means little to my life or any other person’s life. Yes, I know about the germ theory. No reason to worry about it, some have germs and no disease, others have germs and disease and some have disease with no germs. Science doesn’t know why, science doesn’t know a lot of things. Neither do I. But I do know that if you falsely believe you know something, you quit learning about it, and that is not good.

450

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
He didn’t need to form a religion; he was part of an already existent religion.

No, religion is and always has been the enemy of truth. Religion is all about fantasy supplanting reality, about the denial of truth. It is the opposite and enemy of science by it’s nature.

Religion is all about “illogical doctrines”. Science occasionally suffers from them, but they are always overthrown due to the nature of science. Religion cherishes such illogic. Science is not about faith, nor are those who practice it “the faithful”.

Who used principles discovered by science, not religion. If he had tried to use religion, he would have failed as religion always fails, at anything save tyranny and exploitation; that, it is good at.

No, you are simply trying to push your particular fantasy upon us, and failing badly.

“Theory” and “idea” are not at all the same. as evolution is an observed fact, not a theory. The theory is about the details of how it works, not about it’s existence.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know how to answer your posts, it’s not that we are on different pages – different books is more appropriate.

Different realities.

451

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I can’t think of a proper response to this abject ignorance that doesn’t involve making you repeat the first twelve years of school.
[/QUOTE]

It’s yet another example of religious apologists presenting secular knowledge as equally ‘religious’ so that it all comes out a wash. Thinking that seems almost…diseased.

452

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The original post you responded to was intended to point out that there is a religion that teaches it’s followers to embrace education and science. Fact!

You commented and gave the ole roll eyes because they still taught god belief.

I pointed out that at this point in time, god belief and embracing science are not self contradicting.

You then cherry picked something of the web site to sneer at with what was evidently a cursory glance at what was actually being said. I think you even got that wrong. Reading the site I don’t see supreme there. {not that it matters much}Did I miss it or was it something you added?
Their founder is presented as one manifestation of God along with other spiritual figures such as Jesus and Buddha. He is referred to as a divine teacher. Their teachings are less about dogma and getting into heaven and more about

and
I don’t embrace everything they teach but I think the Bahai are a good example of how religion can grow and change and focus their energies as a group on working toward unity and improving mankind’s lot. A worthy goal even through their human imperfections.

So excuse me {or don’t} if your offhanded sneer at them strikes me as an example of your own petty bias.
[/QUOTE]

I certainly would hate to be misunderstood as to what I’m rolling my eyes about since there’s certainly plenty of stuff on here that motivates it.

So, in the spirit of simply understanding what you’re saying and likewise making clearly what I’m saying/replying to, allow me to clarify:

"You commented and gave the ole roll eyes because they still taught god belief. "

I wasn’t rolling my eyes because they ‘still taught god belief.’

I was rolling my eyes, specifically, because their founder declared himself the “supreme manifestation of god.” (!! LOL)

Now, you may not roll your eyes at that. Very well. I do.

Just to clarify what my eye rolling was about.

So, the fact that a recently invented quasireligion includes professions of following science in its dogma (which, of course, is blatantly contradicted by a founder who declares himself the supreme manifestation of god without any scientific evidence – as if there could ever be any) is, if anything, an example that the modern world sensibility seems to recognize that you can’t fool people with total religious crap anymore and at least have to give a nod to scientific reasoning as a way to attempt to entrap otherwise-sensible people into religious hogwash, IMO.

I now return myself to the regular scheduled programming of noting and duly ignoring that empty and ridiculous quasireligion…

Oh yeah: :rolleyes:

453

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I agree that inspiration comes in various degrees. I’m a writer myself and am always interested in other writers talking about the process. I remember Neil Simon saying that when he was truly in the zone it felt like his muse was standing at his shoulder dictating the words from his characters and he felt like he should ask, “What happens next?” Another writer has said “Some songs you write, others you just write down”
I’ve had that feeling of tapping into some creative source and although I think it’s a similar experience, a truly profound spiritual experience is much stronger and more moving. It’s like the difference between a sip of wine and a shot of 100 proof whiskey. That’s why the individual is left with the feeling and perhaps the conviction that they have experienced something that transcends the self.

Reading about Gandhi he recounts an experience in prison when he was contemplating how to approach a certain problem. The answer came to him with such clarity that it seemed literally like another voice. He called it the voice of God although he never tried to insist anyone else accept his interpretation of that experience. For a diseased, irrational mind he did okay.

For myself I’ve had several of varied degrees that startled me and left me in wonder or awe. One in particular that I may have written of before.

I was extremely distraught about certain things. Lying in bed and unable to sleep I played out scenario after scenario trying to figure out what to do. Hours ticked by and eventually I just wanted to turn of my thoughts and sleep. I had a dream or a vision or whatever that explained to me what was going on and why, and how the web of our action and interaction works. I woke up a different person, completely at peace with the situation. I was so euphoric it almost felt like a really good high. A friend who knew nothing of my dream but a lot of my situation commented. “What happened? You’re almost glowing”

I can accept that maybe my anxiety triggered a release of some chemical in the brain to create a more positive feeling, but the vision itself remains a mystery.

You were speaking of our subconscious before {another thread?} It’s interesting to note that some religions teach of our personal awakening as becoming more fully conscious. We become aware of and discard the subconscious motivations and are able to make clearer more mature decisions.
[/QUOTE]

I will say that I’ve had those experiences and they certainly do make one wonder about other realities. While the mechanics can and are explained by science, those types of subjective experiences are part of why I’m an agnostic as opposed to an atheist.

454

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Evolution or not makes no difference concerning God.
[/quote]
Considering that it both helps make him unnecessary to explain anything and contradicts the story of how he supposedly created us ( which further shows the Bible to be a pack of lies ), yes it is important.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I don’t know how the world and man came into existence, and don’t really care. It means little to my life or any other person’s life.
[/quote]
A LOT of people disagree.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, I know about the germ theory. No reason to worry about it, some have germs and no disease, others have germs and disease and some have disease with no germs. Science doesn’t know why, science doesn’t know a lot of things. Neither do I.
[/quote]
Science knows a great deal about what does and doesn’t cause disease. And germ theory has saved billions of lives, which does make it something worth worrying about.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
But I do know that if you falsely believe you know something, you quit learning about it, and that is not good.
[/QUOTE]
Then you should give up on religion, because that’s what it is all about.

455

[QUOTE=lekatt]
As for science and the computer I am typing this on, I believe a kid named Steven Jobs was the creator. Much of what science claims was done by people who never heard of science.
[/quote]

And who discovered the principles of electricity, invented the semiconductor and the computer processor, the electron gun (or whatever has superseded that) running your monitor, etc., etc.? Are you saying science played no role in the development of your computer? Steven Jobs couldn’t have accomplished shit had not generations of scientists before him invented the fundamentals that made computing possible.

You mean your own? You have failed. Science revises itself in response to hostile evidence. Ever hear of the theory of phlogiston? Or of the luminiferous ether? You know why scientists don’t believe them anymore? Because scientists revise their theories in light of new evidence.

You hear of the doctrine of the trinity? Or transubstantiation? Yup. Those aren’t revised in response to hostile reason and evidence. Who is resistant to reason? Who is subject to indoctrination? Your pathetic attempts to draw parallels between science and religion once again betray your fundamental misunderstanding of the two.

456

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Imagine that, it is a shocker. The bones of evolution are evidence of the species and not evidence of evolution which is an idea, a theory.
[/quote]

As I’ve pointed out before, people such as yourself who don’t understand evolution think that the fossil evidence is the only evidence, ignoring things like (say) molecular evidence in the DNA. Besides, making hypotheses that fit the data is what scientists do. If over centuries, reams of data continue to support a hypothesis, only the ignorant deny that the hypothesis is overwhelmingly likely to be true. I suppose you think we don’t really know the sun produces energy via fusion because nobody has been there and seen it; it’s all just a ‘theory’, on the same level as the ‘theory’ that the sun is the chariot of Helios?

Reading is not the same as understanding. And based on your posts, I would say that your scientific understanding ranks toward the bottom of regular GD participants.

457

And just to make sure you don’t get any ideas, lekatt, my lack of respect for you as a debater has nothing to do with your religion. If you read back over this thread, you will see that I afford **Liberal ** a great deal of respect, though he is quite religious. I have no respect for you because you don’t understand the science, which you constantly misrepresent. You ignore every attempt to educate yourself, and keep repeating the same half-truths and misunderstandings in thread after thread after thread. And worst, you seem incapable of even recognizing your own blindness. Despite science-literate dopers and scientist dopers explaining to you the error of your ways, you behave as though you are simply incapable of understanding the most elementary concepts of science and scientific rationality. I’m sure I’ll pit you eventually, but I just don’t have time right now. But it’s something you can look forward to.

458

[QUOTE=lekatt]
But I do know that if you falsely believe you know something, you quit learning about it, and that is not good.
[/QUOTE]
This would seem to be as accurate an observation regarding your “knowledge” of science as I have seen posted, here.

Which, as has been pointed out to you, is an inaccurate statement due to your misreading or failure to comprehend the linked text, yet you continue on, (employing the typical teen “LOL”), as though your error had not been corrected on that point.

459

[QUOTE=lekatt]
You talk as if scientific methods are not voted on by scientists, that they are not responsible for “thinking up” what the methods should be, strange. If you don’t care about what others say, you isolate, and insulate yourself from the world at large as if what science says is all you need to know. A true believer/fundee for science. Suggest you broaden your world a bit, and get a real education.
[/QUOTE]

That’s probably because scientific methods are not voted on. The basic methods are hundreds of years old. New specific methods are introduced, reviewed, tried by others, and spread if they work.

As for you lecturing people on education or how science works, it is to laugh.

460

[QUOTE=lekatt]
OK, lets think about this. Jesus came with a message He said would help people live their lives more abundantly. He started no religion, He was often criticized by the religious of the time. It was others that formed the churches, and decided the beliefs and doctrine for them.

Galileo and others wanted to know the truth about material things and studied them, they formed no organization called science. It was others that formed the scientific organizations and schools. It was others that decided just how the scientific method would be perfomed, how the studies would be done. Us humans love to build belief systems and all belief systems are formed by the consensus of man.

[/quote]

He found us out! You’re right, scientists have secret membership cards, and we get baptized in beakers when we get our PhDs.

What exactly is science trying to control? Not even all religions try to control things - the one I was brought up in didn’t.

Yup, the dogma of science is peer review, reproducibility and falsifiability. Illogical, all.

You don’t have a clue, do you? First of all, Woz did all the engineering. Second, then heart of the computer you’re on now (I assume a Mac) is either a processor from Intel or IBM/Motorola/Freescale. Woz assembled a computer from existing components (including memory and a processor from yet another company.) It was purely engineering. I don’t know how much science Woz knew, but he didn’t need any for his job. However the processor he used was composed of transistors, invented in Bell Labs by scientists. It’s not something people would stumble on accidentally.

The most amazing thing we’ve done in computer science over the past 25 years or so is not getting process sizes down to 65 nanometer and below, and not putting gigabytes of memory in a cheap memory stick, but it is making computers easy enough for people like you to use.