nutronjon Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 Nutron, Please focus on the part of my post below. This explains why adopting the idea of "Nature as God" would be a blow to science and why it is unreasonable. I must say it has become quite tiresome to have to continue explaining this. Simply stated, this notion cannot be scientific because it cannot be proven. There is no theory, no facts, and no evidence. Only opinions. And you know what they say about those (or maybe you don't :)). This is dumb, dumb, dumb simply change your definition of God and we have no argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 This is dumb, dumb, dumb simply change your definition of God and we have no argument. I don't have a definition of god. You do. Your stubbornness is blinding you from the reality of scientific inquiry and you are failing to see reason. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be expected to simply change my definition of god to suit your expectations anyway? This is not scientific. This is another example of proselytizing and why you find yourself on the hot seat around here, nutron. Why do you allow your view of god and your expectations of others to find acceptance in it to remain cast in iron? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutronjon Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 I don't have a definition of god. You do. Your stubbornness is blinding you from the reality of scientific inquiry and you are failing to see reason. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be expected to simply change my definition of god to suit your expectations anyway? This is not scientific. This is another example of proselytizing and why you find yourself on the hot seat around here, nutron. Why do you allow your view of god and your expectations of others to find acceptance in it to remain cast in iron? If you change your definition of God there is no argument, it is as simple as that. The reason for doing so is political and world peace. And it is good science, when we drop the superstitious notions and adopt a scientific one. I repeat, it is politically important and the way to world peace. PS, you don't have to believe in this God. Just use the science definition, and see what happens. I had to look up the word "proselytizing" to know what it means. I am not aware of aware of any religion the uses science to understand God, and if such a religion did exist, I am not of that religion, so I can not be proselytizing. Nothing I have said is about religion. I am only giving God a scientific definition, so that we can aprouch the subject of God scientifically, and that is the best way to end superstition and silly notions that I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 If you change your definition of God there is no argument, it is as simple as that. This is proselytizing, the effort to induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith, in this case Pantheism. Do not ask anyone here to change their definition again in an effort to convert them to your beliefs. Have I made myself clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 The attempt to include "god" (whatever that may be) into the scientific analysis of the universe has been tried many times before over the last millenium. From the 19th Century, we have this admirable quote from a senior British scientist:"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation it would appear that God has a special fondness for stars and beetles." John B. S. Haldane And that about sums up EVERYTHING humanity has ever accomplished with that approach. It's been tried before, Nutronjon, and it has failed, failed, failed.Please stop beating the dead horse. freeztar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 If you change your definition of God there is no argument, it is as simple as that...One plus one equals three. And if you only change your definition of "One", then there is no argument, it is as simple as that. REASON 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 We can look at the results, or at least a very small fraction of them, in the Convert's Corner at Richard Dawkins' website: RichardDawkins.net There are hundreds of testimonials written by fans grateful to have their outlook changed by "The God Delusion" and Dawkins' other works. And I say a fraction, because there are certainly more people who've felt the same and haven't written Dawkins to thank him, and I happen to be one of them. Another great story along these same lines: Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god | theage.com.au "I wasn't searching for anything. I wasn't dabbling or questioning. I wasn't having any kind of spiritual breakdown. I just opened my eyes one day, looked around and realised that I had once been standing in a house and one by one the walls had collapsed and there was no longer a house there. I was standing out in the open. It was very liberating." <...> "It's been a revelation to me a year since my "epiphany". I feel as if I'm walking through life with the blinkers off. Suddenly all the religious mumbo-jumbo jumps out as so bonkers. Wearing certain things, eating certain things, mumbling certain things at certain times so some imaginary friend will let you into a club in the sky when you die. I want to do my living now, thanks. I'm not afraid of dying. I'm afraid of never having lived. There is a school of thought that suggests atheists should not call themselves atheists but just say we apply rational thought to everything and religion is no exception. As Sam Harris, author of The End Of Faith, puts it, "I think that 'atheist' is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. " <...> "A quote attributed to Stephen F. Robert sums it up for me: "We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted August 23, 2008 Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 can science tell you what vanillia tastes like?that's the problem with science, can't tell you what you really want to know.chemistry can give you a better tasting vanillia, but you still have to taste it science has proven that life doesn't just start, others say it can or did and that's their opinion. how can a man look at something and not have an opinion about it? who decides which opinion is correct? science has proven there is a great gulf between man and animal. but why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 23, 2008 Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 can science tell you what vanillia tastes like?that's the problem with science, can't tell you what you really want to know.chemistry can give you a better tasting vanillia, but you still have to taste it Science can tell you if something contains vanilla, you can't even tell me what vanilla tastes like why would you expect science to able to do that? science has proven that life doesn't just start, others say it can or did and that's their opinion. how can a man look at something and not have an opinion about it? who decides which opinion is correct? Not true goku science says life did just start, opinions are like as*@#& everyone has one and most of the time they stink. Science doesn't operate on opinions, it operates on evidence. science has proven there is a great gulf between man and animal. but why? Another falsehood goku, science has shown there to no difference, humans are animals. We have very close relatives that are not human. You just like to beat dead horses don't you goku? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted August 23, 2008 Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 can science tell you what vanillia tastes like?that's the problem with science, can't tell you what you really want to know.chemistry can give you a better tasting vanillia, but you still have to taste it The proof of the puddin's in the tastin'. Science can't tell you what god tastes like Mr. Goku. But, that's not really the subject of this thread. Look up. See? Two different questions these are:Is there such a substance-X?What does this substance-X taste like?You moved right past one and went to number two. science has proven that life doesn't just start, Prove it. others say it can or did and that's their opinion. how can a man look at something and not have an opinion about it? who decides which opinion is correct? Nobody... and certainly not science. It is not the job of science to go around proving things correct or incorrect. If a theory is useful and gives good results then science uses it - that's all. The theory of God has never been useful to science. It has never given any good results. But, science is not close minded. If ever a theory of God does give useful results, science will eat it up like the oh so good puddin' of proof the rest of science is based on. science has proven there is a great gulf between man and animal. but why? Prove it. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted August 23, 2008 Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 Science can tell you if something contains vanilla, you can't even tell me what vanilla tastes like why would you expect science to able to do that? Not true goku science says life did just start, opinions are like as*@#& everyone has one and most of the time they stink. Science doesn't operate on opinions, it operates on evidence. Another falsehood goku, science has shown there to no difference, humans are animals. We have very close relatives that are not human. You just like to beat dead horses don't you goku? of course science operates on opinions, what do you think theories are?just one little differance between humans and animals, off the top of my head, humans wear clothes.and that is fact, humans wear clothes, factwell, maybe some humans more than others :) but i agree, the body is animal and oh so weird. how many hairless mamals are there? and i can't tell you what vanillia tastes like, nor can i explain how it feels to know God and to know that when i die i will be with Him in heaven. i can only say, from the bottom of my heart, that there is a God now i will most likely be punished because i said "i know", and that beggs the question, what do you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 24, 2008 Report Share Posted August 24, 2008 of course science operates on opinions, what do you think theories are? Theories are hypothesis backed up by evidence, not opinions. a hypothesis might be an opinion but never a theory. just one little differance between humans and animals, off the top of my head, humans wear clothes.and that is fact, humans wear clothes, factwell, maybe some humans more than others :hihi:but i agree, the body is animal and oh so weird. how many hairless mamals are there? Why are all of you bible bangers obsessed with nudity? Lots on mammals have no fur, whales come to mind, mole rats, elephants, hippos, rhinos, manatees, humans. Are you going to want to put clothes on all of these animals too? and i can't tell you what vanillia tastes like, nor can i explain how it feels to know God and to know that when i die i will be with Him in heaven. i can only say, from the bottom of my heart, that there is a God now i will most likely be punished because i said "i know", and that beggs the question, what do you know? I am happy for you goku, glad to hear you are so happy, ignorance is bliss it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted August 24, 2008 Report Share Posted August 24, 2008 Theories are hypothesis backed up by evidence,and who looks at the evidence?a person without an opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted August 24, 2008 Report Share Posted August 24, 2008 Goku, would you describe the God you believe in? Is there mass, or movement, or molecules, or human emotion? Where is he/she? Does he have helpers? What does he do with his time since the universe seems to be running well on its own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 24, 2008 Report Share Posted August 24, 2008 and who looks at the evidence?a person without an opinion? No, a person who knows his opinions are meaningless. A person who looks dispatently at the evidence. A person who knows that belief changes nothing. In other words a scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted August 24, 2008 Report Share Posted August 24, 2008 No, a person who knows his opinions are meaningless. A person who looks dispatently at the evidence. A person who knows that belief changes nothing. In other words a scientist. Yup. I couldn't agree more. Isn't the difference obvious goku? In your post above, you wear as a badge of honor the fact that you have no evidence for God yet believe anyway. You say that you "know" the truth, but have nothing but your own feeling to base that truth on. What MTM is saying is exactly the opposite of that--it is basing belief on evidence rather than personal feeling. It's the scientific method and it's the opposite of your feeling-with-no-proof claim. These are obviously two fundamentally different approaches. I don't believe your approach is rational, goku. While it seems to be normal to human psychology, it also seems to be completely irrational. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 24, 2008 Report Share Posted August 24, 2008 Goku if you really want to understand science and the things science says and does you must get beyond what you want to be true, what you feel must be true, and what others who trust their feelings over reality tell you must be true. At one time everyone thought the earth was flat, it was common sense and the religions of the time backed up that feeling of rightness but science proved the Earth was a sphere. Feelings are not reality, reality is truth, anything less is just an assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.