Lord and Saviour ?

[MANN]

a strict adherence to logic, data, and empiricism as a foundation to solve humanities problems. making up **** and believing in things for which you have no good reason to, doesn't help humanity solve its problems, and certainly does not help in engineering. that is the very definition of a poor engineer.

You are 110% right about all of that.

subjective experience is not proof of anything, as an engineer you should know that best of all.

I couldn't agree more. I dare to say that I can explain any unnatural occurrence/miracle/etc with physics, logic, and math.

why would having a child change my opinion? it won't but im curious why you'd think that.

It changes your prospective on some aspects of "life". I can't explain it. I have been fortunate enough to stand on the edge of the grand canyon. I cant explain how beautiful it is either. It is just something you have to experience to understand. I know that's a piss poor explanation, but it is what it is.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

[cockerpunk]

You are 110% right about all of that.



I couldn't agree more. I dare to say that I can explain any unnatural occurrence/miracle/etc with physics, logic, and math.

yet you claim i should experience a miracle and become convinced?

It changes your prospective on some aspects of "life". I can't explain it. I have been fortunate enough to stand on the edge of the grand canyon. I cant explain how beautiful it is either. It is just something you have to experience to understand.

this happens when i stare up into the night sky. but it isn't a spiritual moment, its a moment when you realize what is out there, not what you wish was out there. you are looking up, into the vastness of the universe, something 14.5 billion years old. that light you are seeing? the light from another sun, hundred of millions of miles away. in your minds eye you can see and feel the microwave background radiation, you can see Andromeda as it approaches the milky way on its collision course. its a moment when you feel as human as you can, and in that moment, all you can do is try to remember to breath. and then you remember that the atoms in your body, were forged in these stars, what your seeing is lighter elements being forged into heavier elements, and you are observing this, millions of miles away. and those atoms they are forging will be spewed into the universe when the star dies, and from that ... you were born.

but thats not god, or religion, that is knowledge of the universe. calling it a religious experience is to cheapen it. its a reality experience, when the universe hits you so hard you can only stop and stare.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

there are plenty of ways god could prove himself to me. i can list half a dozen if you really want.

[Lohman446]

atheism is merely the belief that there is no god, there is no other dogma, ritual, or agreed upon way to live, like there is with religion. how does one get from there is no god, to hunting people down and killing them?

those middle steps ... those would be the real problem, not the disbelief in a deity. whereas religion is not just the belief in a god, it comes with a whole list of dos, don't and who to kills.

The middle steps from atheism (or religion) to hunting down and killing people are the problems.

It is not atheism or religion. Its those pesky middle steps. Christiantiy, in its current practice in the western world, does not come with that list of people to "kills". Your argument is all religion - current Christianity as practiced in the western world falls into that category right?

[cockerpunk]

The middle steps from atheism (or religion) to hunting down and killing people are the problems.

It is not atheism or religion. Its those pesky middle steps. Christiantiy, in its current practice in the western world, does not come with that list of people to "kills". Your argument is all religion - current Christianity as practiced in the western world falls into that category right?

you don't get it. if religion was merely the belief in a god, then, as much as i disagree with it, it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. the problem is that BY NECESSITY, the belief in a god, comes with everything else. Christianity does very much have a list of kills, look at Africa, Christianity is single handedly ****ing an entire continent of people, and why? so the pope can claim, he is keeping there spirits clean. because there spirits being clean, is more important then them being alive. and why? because the pope says he is protecting life.

meanwhile, the simple disbelief in a god, does not come with any dogma.

[Lohman446]

you don't get it. if religion was merely the belief in a god, then, as much as i disagree with it, it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. the problem is that BY NECESSITY, the belief in a god, comes with everything else. Christianity does very much have a list of kills, look at Africa, Christianity is single handedly ****ing an entire continent of people, and why? so the pope can claim, he is keeping there spirits clean. because there spirits being clean, is more important then them being alive. and why? because the pope says he is protecting life.

meanwhile, the simple disbelief in a god, does not come with any dogma.

Except I can't believe in God and I must accept that religion is "evil".

No. The beleif in God does not necessarily come with everything else. You cannot for a moment begin to tell me what my belief in God, derived through reason and logic, comes with. You may not tell others who have reached a beleif in God that their beleif is invalid and must be evil.

[Flatliner333]

I was commenting just the other day on the story about the NYPD cop who gave the boots to the homeless guy. People were posting saying the homeless guy sold the boots and that the cop was a fool. My point was that it doesnt matter what the guy did with the boots because the cop did a nice thing for him and God saw that. I was reminded of something that had happened to me.

A while back I was about to fill my truck up with gas and a man on the other side of the pump asked if I could give him some money. He needed just enough gas to get home and could I help him. Instead of giving him money I put the nozzle in his truck and started pumping him some gas. After $5.00 worth he said thank you but I kept on pumping until it got to $30.00. My truck was below empty and I hadn't pumped myself any yet so I started pumping my gas at $30.00. Now ...my truck has a 22 gallon tank and at the time it took $70.00 to fill it up. I stopped pumping at $70.00 like I normaly do because that is all I could afford. Sooo if I only pumped $40.00 in my truck and it takes $70.00 to fill it up why did my fuel guage show a full tank when I started it up...and no it wasnt broke. Matthew 25:40

Ive got another one for who ever may be interested. Several years back when I was in my twenties my mother was very upset because she had lost a necklace that my father had given her. I was big into church at the time (she was not) so selfishly I said "why dont you pray about it, maybe it will turn up". Two weeks later she called me crying to tell me she had found it. Where did she find it you ask? At the back of her yard with a small fig tree growing up through it...how did that happen?

I only post in this thread because of Matthew 10:33 "but whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

[Lohman446]

One of the problems with this quest that CP is on to deem all religion evil is summed up by asking a question:

Why is it wrong to kill another man?

You may not cite religion. Further you may not cite any philosophical theory - the reason being is if that religion is "evil" for its lists of do's and don'ts and claim of "natural authority" so are those. That is to say if we cite Mill's work woth the harm thereom and principle of autonomy we are giving those principles authority over our actions.

Edit: When you denounce religion as inherently evil because it provides answers to such questions how do you avoid the replacement receiving the same label? Because you like the replacement better? Seems rather egotistical to me

[cockerpunk]

Except I can't believe in God and I must accept that religion is "evil".

No. The beleif in God does not necessarily come with everything else. You cannot for a moment begin to tell me what my belief in God, derived through reason and logic, comes with. You may not tell others who have reached a beleif in God that their beleif is invalid and must be evil.

please show me a religion that only believes in god. nothing else at all.

I only post in this thread because of Matthew 10:33 "but whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

And you worship this guy? and look to him for moral guidance? sounds more like a dick to me then a deity.

One of the problems with this quest that CP is on to deem all religion evil is summed up by asking a question:

Why is it wrong to kill another man?

You may not cite religion. Further you may not cite any philosophical theory - the reason being is if that religion is "evil" for its lists of do's and don'ts and claim of "natural authority" so are those. That is to say if we cite Mill's work woth the harm thereom and principle of autonomy we are giving those principles authority over our actions.

pretty easy. and you again misunderstand my authority point. i can reference whomever i want, as long as its there reasoning i am referencing, not saying "because mills said this, you have to believe it"

but no matter, here are some naturalistic reasons to not murder:

1. life is rare. intelligent life is very rare indeed. destroying life without the express purpose of preserving life is wrong
2. i don't want to be killed, so why would i kill?
3. the idea of killing nauseates me. probably because killing unjustly does not serve an evolutionary purpose to the survival of the species
4. a life is potential, a great potential. a great ability to make the world around us better. and the only justification to end that potential, is to not kill unless the person being killed would have caused greater harm

there are more if you need them. and not only have i naturalistically come to the conclusion that murder is wrong, i have also delineated when killing is justified.




so are you going to tell me the only reason you don't go on a killing spree is god? i would hope that isn't the case.

[Lohman446]

pretty easy. and you again misunderstand my authority point. i can reference whomever i want, as long as its there reasoning i am referencing, not saying "because mills said this, you have to believe it"

but no matter, here are some naturalistic reasons to not murder:

1. life is rare. intelligent life is very rare indeed. destroying life without the express purpose of preserving life is wrong
2. i don't want to be killed, so why would i kill?
3. the idea of killing nauseates me. probably because killing unjustly does not serve an evolutionary purpose to the survival of the species
4. a life is potential, a great potential. a great ability to make the world around us better. and the only justification to end that potential, is to not kill unless

there are more if you need them. and not only have i naturalistically come to the conclusion that murder is wrong, i have also delineated when killing is justified.




so are you going to tell me the only reason you don't go on a killing spree is god? i would hope that isn't the case.

If it is human reasoning then that gives you the conclusion of what is right and wrong what keeps the evil label from being applied to it? We surely are not going to argue that human reasoning is infallible are we?

I'm not arguing that all religion is right. Nor would I argue that those lists of do's and don'ts are right. However there is a major difference in being inaccurate and being evil.

[cockerpunk]

If it is human reasoning then that gives you the conclusion of what is right and wrong what keeps the evil label from being applied to it? We surely are not going to argue that human reasoning is infallible are we?

I'm not arguing that all religion is right. Nor would I argue that those lists of do's and don'ts are right. However there is a major difference in being inaccurate and being evil.

i didn't claim human reasoning is infallible. but i believe that given accurate information, human reasoning is the best we have.

and what a bunch of bronze age men though was right and wrong might have been the best they could come up with then, but we can do better. a lot better. and to repress this ability to reason, by adhering to bronze age morals? ridiculous.

so again, i'd like to ask, is the only reason you don't kill people god?

[Lohman446]

i didn't claim human reasoning is infallible. but i believe that given accurate information, human reasoning is the best we have.

and what a bunch of bronze age men though was right and wrong might have been the best they could come up with then, but we can do better. a lot better. and to repress this ability to reason, by adhering to bronze age morals? ridiculous.

so again, i'd like to ask, is the only reason you don't kill people god?

No. I don't kill people because I have an inherent belief doing so is wrong. I can attempt to explain that beleif and point to various philosophical theories or religions but in the end there is part of my being that accepts it as wrong. Oddly enough emprical testing designed to find this and label it as something more the neurological impulses have failed.

Empircal testing designed to prove the existence of a soul has largely failed (those that have yelled "Eureka" in the past had methological errors). Those that have attempted to prove the negative have found the same problem that proving a negative brings to the table every time - it is nearly impossible.

Religion does not deny the right of conscious and reason to man. The institutions that attempt to stay in power may attempt to do so but that is not the fault of religion that is the fault of those who would use it for power - those pesky middle steps again.

[cockerpunk]

No. I don't kill people because I have an inherent belief doing so is wrong. I can attempt to explain that beleif and point to various philosophical theories or religions but in the end there is part of my being that accepts it as wrong. Oddly enough emprical testing designed to find this and label it as something more the neurological impulses have failed.

Empircal testing designed to prove the existence of a soul has largely failed (those that have yelled "Eureka" in the past had methological errors). Those that have attempted to prove the negative have found the same problem that proving a negative brings to the table every time - it is nearly impossible.

Religion does not deny the right of conscious and reason to man. The institutions that attempt to stay in power may attempt to do so but that is not the fault of religion that is the fault of those who would use it for power - those pesky middle steps again.

and yet it does deny reason to man. religion is by its very definition irrational, as in, not rational.

[dahoeb]

in fact, most of them on that list do have a religion - state or leader worship. Exactly, I was going to lead into that until you rudely beat me to it.......

no where have i advocated or supported the idea of religious controls, or mandated atheism. in fact, the exactly opposite, a faith in humanity, that we can trust ourselves to make good decisions, and have the freedom to make those decisions. Yeup, no major disagreements.

Everyone has a God and religion, whether it be a deity, the government or science. Everyone has something that is looked at to outline why things are the way they are and how they should be.

Arguing with an atheist is not much different than a Christian arguing with a Muslim, two people arguing about which belief system is better or more right. Christians and some other major religions believe that science can be the tool of God, while atheists seem more apt to replace God with science.

I think it's ironic how the more aggressive atheists sound no different (in tone) than equally aggressive (insert major religion here) when advocating their "religion".

Just some musings.....

[dahoeb]

and yet it does deny reason to man. religion is by its very definition irrational, as in, not rational.

So scientists who also may be religious aren't reasonable?

There's countless instances where perfectly well reasoned people who were worked in the sciences also happened to be religious.

I don't know where this "mutually exclusive attitude" comes from, though I'm sure you've tried to explain it over the past 329 pages of this thread...

As far as the rationality of it religion, that's an opinion. Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it's disproven.

I recently read an interesting article about a group of scientists trying to conduct experiments to see if we live in a simulated universe, the Matrix style. They were able to find evidence that we don't, but admitted that it's impossible disprove because the simulation may be too perfect. We just need a little faith that we don't live in a giant computer I guess. I think this has a lot of parallels to the arguments between atheists and religion today.

[cockerpunk]

Everyone has a God and religion, whether it be a deity, the government or science. Everyone has something that is looked at to outline why things are the way they are and how they should be.

Arguing with an atheist is not much different than a Christian arguing with a Muslim, two people arguing about which belief system is better or more right. Christians and some other major religions believe that science can be the tool of God, while atheists seem more apt to replace God with science.

I think it's ironic how the more aggressive atheists sound no different (in tone) than equally aggressive (insert major religion here) when advocating their "religion".

Just some musings.....

everyone has a philosophy, yes, but a religion? no. religion is a matter of faith, there are many philosophies that do not include, or outright object to faith.

So scientists who also may be religious aren't reasonable?

There's countless instances where perfectly well reasoned people who were worked in the sciences also happened to be religious.

I don't know where this "mutually exclusive attitude" comes from, though I'm sure you've tried to explain it over the past 329 pages of this thread...

yeah, there are. and yes, on the topic of religion they are just as unreasonable as anyone else who believes things without reason.

yes, living a life where you accept reason and evidence to form your worldview, and living a life believing things which you can have no reason to believe, yes, those are mutually exclusive.

but, people are hypocrites, it happens.