Freethinker Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Far less futile however than allowing others to claim it as proof of something when they admit that even they have no valid reason to accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 No claim of proof from this quarter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 No claim of proof from this quarter!Obviously. Thanks for the direct admission. We will keep that in mind when evaluating your assertions. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I quess we are back to defining proof again, maybe we need to consider the laws of probability. I believe this is an accepted scientific platform. I'm sure you'll have a good answer for this one, you are certainly an intellagent individual. By the way, I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just defending my right to resist your attempts to convert me. I'm sure that if we can learn to put this behind us, I can learn a lot from you. Your expertice in science is the reason I'm at this forum, please let me learn. I have many question about the physical universe that I would like to find an answer for, maybe you can help me find some answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 We need to make this site and the rest of the internet safe for faith based beliefs and believers! Oh no...my clever ploy has been revealed! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I quess we are back to defining proof again, maybe we need to consider the laws of probability. I believe this is an accepted scientific platform. I'm sure you'll have a good answer for this one,... I have many question about the physical universe that I would like to find an answer for, maybe you can help me find some answers.Yes Science is nothing if not Probability. But I am nit sure of what you are asking from us. I went back and checked your first post to establish context. In it you first make the statement that there are two main theories of the universe, BB and Steady State. You then state that either way, it proves god. In a later post you specifically state that even after facts were presented that contradicted your incorrect understandings, your faith will not change. In what way is this being open to finding answers? Why bother looking for new info if you will only reject anything that does not square with your predetermined desires? I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just defending my right to resist your attempts to convert me.Who said I was trying to convert you? At best (worst?) I approach discussions based on an assumed desire by all sides to gain new information in order to make sure our understandings are based on best info. I can only assume that my editorializing on the concept of facts, valid proofs and using logic in developing one's personal World View stikes a nerve that you find to cause a problem with your own approach. And you associate this with being forced to change your own approach. You are free to accept or reject as you please. Perhaps if you feel that intimidated by exposure to the Freethought approach, it is your own internal cognitive dissonance and not specific actions on my part?I have many question about the physical universe that I would like to find an answer for, maybe you can help me find some answers.I'd rather than we find them together and share them. I lay no claim to exclusive knowlege or sources. If I have any advantage it Iis my use of Freethought as opposed to blind faith. It's the approach, not the data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 I'm open to all points of view, I just find it hard to accept the attitude of some, when constantly trying to disprove Gods existence seems to be their mission in life. I will admit that I probably had it coming, seeing that I brought it up. I think I understand now why you are so angry with religion. Religion has been responsible and is still being responsible for some of the worst atrocities comitted by human beings against each other that we can find examples of. I'm not particularlly fond of organized religion myself, my faith is very personal in nature and I don't need the Pope or anyone else to support what I believe. I know that Christ wouldn't have condoned burning so called witches at the stake, and neither do I. If you'll read the Gospels, Christ preached love and tollerance, not hate and violence. Maybe we can agree to disagree on a belief in a God, but just because I believe doesn't make me a burner of witches, my faith is based on the teachings of Christ. My interest in science does not have to conflict with my belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 My interest in science does not have to conflict with my belief. Well, we haven't done THIS in a wile. I can hardly wait until later this morning to see the response... :) infamous, you are right, religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities ever recorded. You are also correct in stating that believing in God doesn't mean that you are personally responsible for burning anyone, witch or not. However, I think that you will find, at this site at least, that to have a 'belief' in anything is not as important as trusting in verifiable facts, concrete proof, and peer-reviewed studies. Very few will agree that science and religion are able to co-exist. Why they have to be mutually exclusive, I'm not quite sure. But that seems to be the general concensus. Good luck on this one! EDIT:I said that to have a 'belief' in anything is not as important as trusting in verifiable facts, , but what I really meant was that to have a 'belief' in anything is not as important as accepting verifiable facts, , as I have learned that 'trusting in', believing, and ACCEPTING are very different things. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 I'm open to all points of view, I just find it hard to accept the attitude of some, when constantly trying to disprove Gods ........... Well, there is no problem to me if people believe in god, accepting that it is a belief, that means not a "provable" thing; this implies that those believers don't claim anything like they are right and you are wrong because you don't believe and so on...It is exactly this believers that have no problem of mutual exclusion between science and religion, they just can say my belief in god is not scientific, but that's right to me. I've got a good friend who is quite a strong believer (he is mussulman, does the ramadan, doesn't drink alcohol and so on...), he knows very well my point of view about religion and that has never been a problem, because he doesn't think he has a proof, he just beliefs.All the people on this forum which try to disprove god, do it for this reason, the believers won't accept that it is only a belief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Good morning Irish Eyes; Maybe it's time to make a few comments about proof again. For the last 2000 years technology "frankly even long before that" our concept of the truth has been constantly changing. What was accepted as fact in the time of the Egyptians has long sense been replaced by totally new views of reality. Even today, with the advent of string theory, our concept of the universe is changing constantly. A hundred years from now, I'm sure our understanding will again be much different than it is now. We do need however to formulate our concepts based on known physical data that is presently contemporary. But just remember this very wise comment from one of the worlds most intelligent men. " The more things change, the more they remain the same." I wouldn't be so inclined to place absolute trust in todays view of things. These views are bound to change as time marches on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 infamous, you are right, religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities ever recorded. You are also correct in stating that believing in God doesn't mean that you are personally responsible for burning anyone, witch or not. However, I think that you will find, at this site at least, that to have a 'belief' in anything is not as important as trusting in verifiable facts, concrete proof, and peer-reviewed studies. Very few will agree that science and religion are able to co-exist. Why they have to be mutually exclusive, I'm not quite sure. But that seems to be the general concensus. Good luck on this one! Religion and science are different in methodologies. Sure, they both make claims about nature and the universe, but then what? These and other claims are checked with science anyway. Sometimes religion and science are impossible to co-exist. Take for example the religious claims that the universe is 6000 years old and that evolution is completely false etc. These claims are obviously not true, no matter what one happen to believe. I would suppose that religious claims and scientific claims are possible to believe in at the same time, as long as they don't contradict each other :-) However, when it comes to philosophy, they are so different that I'm surprised it's possible at all to believe some things based on an old book and lack of contrary evidence, and at the same time believe other things that are supported by evidence etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Okay, playtime. I love posts like this. :) For the last 2000 years technology "frankly even long before that" our concept of the truth has been constantly changing. A) Where does the "2000 years" come into play? Why is it an issue? :) What is "our concept of thruth"? C) Who is included in "our"? D) What does this change imply? Is it quantitative, qualitative, better, worse, more, less, blue, yellow? No, I'm not ridiculing you. There are just too many undefineds in that sentence that I don't even know what to discuss. What was accepted as fact in the time of the Egyptians has long sense been replaced by totally new views of reality. E) Which time of the Egyptians (in fact, which Egyptians)? Take your pick: http://touregypt.net/ehistory.htm F) What was the Egyptian "view of reality"? G) Whose views of reality are you talking about? A Christian White Female in Virginia or a Young Asian Moslem in Kuala Lumpur? Or a Scandinavian Atheist? My point being, of course, that each person has a different view of reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Perhaps I made a mistake in reading ahead, which I usually do not do. Preferring to respond in a linear fashion and not get issues confused by mixing posts. It was particularly interesting to see Mother Hen post a warning as to what to expect in replies. Got your iron underware on yet? :-) I'm open to all points of view, and ready to reject any that do not conform with your preconcieved faith based belief structure, based on what I have read so far. I just find it hard to accept the attitude of some, when constantly trying to disprove Gods existence seems to be their mission in life. I hope I am not assuming too much to think I may be part of the reason for this statement. Although it misrepresents actual intentions, I will accept it as a complement anyway. :-) I have no need nor desire to try to do something so illogical and impossible as to try to prove the non-existence of something. The only time we even see this suggested is by those desperate to cling to fallacies and superstitions. Those that fail to use critical thinking universally in their lives. As anyone that is familiar with philosophy/ logic/ CT are aware of the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof and would not suggest that trying to prove non-existence of anything is even possible. Those so desperate to cling to god myths, knowing they will fail miserably to provide anything a rational approach would accept will try this shifting of burden. They may fool themselves and others also lacking a basis in CT and logic by making such a claim. But it is them that also are trying to reject facts that expose the fallacies of their faith based myths. And this is the last corner they have. All they are telling us, indirectly, is that we have been succesful in exposing their fraud by providing FACTS they can not refute. And that is why I will accept it as a complement. I will admit that I probably had it coming, seeing that I brought it up.y interest in science does not have to conflict with my belief. Thanks for the honesty. Yes I will always jump on any such claims that are posted here. It is my own Zero Tolerance Policy. Let's stick to factual discussions based on logic and reason. Even philosophical issues should be approached based on reality and a reasoned response to it. If you bring an outside agent into the discussion, expect it to be challenged. I think I understand now why you are so angry with religion. Religion has been responsible and is still being responsible for some of the worst atrocities comitted by human beings against each other that we can find examples of. I'm not particularlly fond of organized religion myself, my faith is very personal in nature and I don't need the Pope or anyone else to support what I believe. I know that Christ... As we find here. Notice the intial effort to remove yourself from the very thing you later claim adherance and acceptance of. You don't KNOW anything about a Christ. NOTHING! There is a complete lack of factual support for the existence of a Christ. Especially considering that this Christ is almost certainly the Christian bible based one. (e.g. there is also Krishna which could be considered the Hindu version of a Christ) You accept claims that this person actually existed. And the ONLY source of information to base this Christ belief on is the RELIGIOUS text, the bible. Thus to claim to reject any religion, while supporting the claims of a religion, is self contradictory, an oxymoron, irrational, bogus. However I can appreciate why one would not want to be associated with the results we have historically and currently see when people follow the bible. ...wouldn't have condoned burning so called witches at the stake So the hero of the bible would be as selective in what he followed in it as his followers are? Or was it just that he would favor some form of killing the witches other than buring at the stake? If you'll read the Gospels, Christ preached love and tollerance, not hate and violence. LIES LIES LIES.... Typical Christian. Ignore what the bible ACTUALLY says and pretend it says what you wish. Luke 14:26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" Matt.10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother- in-law...." Luke 19:27 "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me." Maybe we can agree to disagree on a belief in a God, What is there to disagree on? I agree with your statements. You don't have any proof to offer for your faith based belief system. And I agree that you have the right to choose to deal with that in the fashion you wish. Just as I have the right to state how I feel about it. And offer what I see as an alternative approach. I never questioned that there is a BELIEF in any various gods. Or that others hold those beliefs for any variety of reasons. What do we disagree on? but just because I believe doesn't make me a burner of witches, my faith is based on the teachings of Christ. Ah but Jesus said he did not change one jot of the OT. As such the teachings of Christ includes the whole witch thing. You are being selective, a Cafeteria Christian. My interest in science does not have to conflict with my belief. That is up to where you wish to draw your line. The point at which you stop applying scientific methodology, reason and logic, to your philosophy of life. I hope you are open to examining that along with all of the other things we discuss here. I wish I ahd more time, but it is Friday and I have been working on this message on and off all day. Sorry if it is disjointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Just a admin note, FT ... I had to fix to "qoute" tags in your post. It's "quote" (notice the order of o's and u's in there). :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 I will be direct and to the point, "the more things change the more they remain the same". I would be careful about investing absolute trust in any scientific principle. You will notice that I did say "absolute trust", even though we do need current scientific data to form opinions about the physical world we live in. Again, I'm not disputing any currently accepted data, I'm only saying that as time passes we may need to change our minds about things. In fact I'll guarantee that one hundred years from today our view of the universe will look much different than it looks today. And before I get disected like a laboratory frog, I did say different but not necesarily totally so. I've put on my cast iron underware, so let me have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 Hey everyone, I'm new here. was searching on Google and came across the site. I must say...it's a new haven for me :) I have a question - Could God create a stone that he could not lift? Why would god waste his time lifting a stupid rock? But if u want me to say somthing on those lines- God can make a rock heavy if he wanted, as heavy as he likes, but he can also sit back and care about u more than a stupid rock...my heres my constructive criticism that Tim Lou ws talking about in his welcome...A quetion to think about that question: would he let u lift that rock? WHats under that rock? and where would he make it? Heaven? Hell? Earth? God can do anythign he wants... OP5 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.