Balancing The Two

[Alpha]

Also, there should be a forum for Bioethics.

Bioethics is a subset of ethics & morality, for which there is already a forum. It could use some more activity.

I understand that trees are living creatures created by God for a purpose that has for a long time been greater than our understanding. It is because a system that would be almost completely closed would have to be created by itself to be stable.

Perhaps you ought to forget bioethics. Trees weren't created by God for some purpose, they evolved. If you can't understand biology you shouldn't be in bioethics.

I believe we are His children.

We are our parents children.

I think that He has done things to help us.

That would require breaking the laws of nature.

Or they refuse to believe because the understanding they have does not allow for it. They understand God to be a certain way but it conflicts with something they believe so they choose not to believe. Either way that is your choice.

And if it conflicts with the understanding that reality is consistent?

Can it be that you are so arrogant as to think there is absolutely no possibility of God existing, and you have the proof for it?

I suppose you think I am arrogant.

Science is a tool. It has no inherent values or ethics -- but those given to it by the users of science.

Are you sure about that?

So is science: it can help people to lead healthier lives, or it can corrupt them.
It all depends on who takes science into his hands.

Science is like any other tool, but it is the user who is responsible, not science (the tool) itself.

It is no more meaningful to attempt to prove that a god doesn’t exist than it is to attempt to prove that the wizard of oz doesn’t exist. They are both fictional characters.

On the contrary. The concept of God is relevant to the existence of the universe, while the wizard of Oz is not relevant to anything of comparable importance.

 

[Cris]

Rosa,

How can you know that he indeed could have been "better" had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion?!

Can you show that the illogic of religion didn’t interfere with his ability to think clearly at all times?

 

[davewhite04]

Cris:

It is a way of thinking that is strengthened by practice and constant focus. If half your time you choose to do the opposite then you weaken and dilute your ability to think logically at other times.

LOL, have you got first hand experience of this?

It is an imaginative fairy tale that has been propagated for thousands of years in thousands of different forms and variations. Why would anyone ever consider that such silly ideas might be real in the light of modern science? It is no more meaningful to attempt to prove that a god doesn’t exist than it is to attempt to prove that the wizard of oz doesn’t exist. They are both fictional characters.

What silly ideas? Read the Bible again and come back and tell me it is a silly book. Cris, tell me a single person in history that is comparable to Jesus Christ?

This is what Napoleon thought:

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I founded empires, but on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love, and at this hour millions of people would die for him."

Napoleon Bonaparte, french emperor (1769 - 1821)

Now I will hazard a guess that you'll question the actual existance of the historical Jesus, well so be it. I know who I would rather learn from.

If you want to make a case that such imaginary things are not fictional then show some proof – no one in several thousands of years has yet come close.

I admit that it is faith that mainly drives my belief. However you seem convinced that there is no God, without even faith. So really the burden of proof is on you as you are making the claim.

But I’m not the one being confused by believing fictional characters are real.

Here, a good example of you being convinced about biblical characters being fictional, without a shread of proof, just hot air.

Dave

 

[davewhite04]

I suppose you think I am arrogant.

I don't know if this was directed at me?

Dave

 

[Cris]

Alpha,

The concept of God is relevant to the existence of the universe,

Not if one is logical. The two fairy tales are identical in that they both posit the idea that magic can make things happen. Both are equally irrelevant to cosmology.

 

[Cris]

Davewhite,

LOL, have you got first hand experience of this?

Yes.

What silly ideas? Read the Bible again and come back and tell me it is a silly book. Cris, tell me a single person in history that is comparable to Jesus Christ?

It is silly because it has no factual credibility and people are expected to believe it is true. That is silly.

JC represents the concept of something coming to remove all our fears and grant us all our dreams and showering us with perfect love. There is nothing in comparison – it is the ultimate utopia that everyone is drawn to desire. And nothing in the universe indicates that such a thing is or will ever be possible. It is a false dream, or at least one at which is going to take us a very long time to achieve with our own hard work.

This is what Napoleon thought:

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I founded empires, but on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love, and at this hour millions of people would die for him."

Napoleon Bonaparte, frence emperor (1769 - 1821)

It’s a wonderful inspirational concept but offers nothing in the way of proof of gods or that such characters need to exist or for such ideas to exist.

I admit that it is faith that mainly drives my belief. However you seem convinced that there is no God, without even faith. So really the burden of proof is on you as you are making the claim.

How so? All concepts of gods remain fictional until someone like yourself can show otherwise. You have proposed that such things are real yet you admit you don’t have any evidence (you use faith). Why is there any onus on me to prove the default that such things are fictional when there is no evidence to believe otherwise?

Here, a good example of you being convinced about biblical characters being fictional, without a shread of proof, just hot air.

They are fictional by default – this is fact. There is nothing to prove. The onus remains on you to show they are real since it is theists who introduced and created the ideas not me.

 

[Alpha]

I don't know if this was directed at me?

Dave

Yes, you are the one I quoted.

Not if one is logical. The two fairy tales are identical in that they both posit the idea that magic can make things happen. Both are equally irrelevant to cosmology.

Just because the God theory is unproven doesn't make it irrelevant. It's a theory that should be proven true or false. The wizard of Oz isn't a theory.

 

[davewhite04]

It is silly because it has no factual credibility and people are expected to believe it is true. That is silly.

What lack of factual credibility are you referring to?

You have proposed that such things are real yet you admit you don’t have any evidence (you use faith). Why is there any onus on me to prove the default that such things are fictional when there is no evidence to believe otherwise?

I can admit to you that I have no physical evidence of God, but I do have faith. You write as if you're an authority on the non-existance of God, so do you admit that you don't know if God exists or not? If you say he doesn't exist, then I'll assume you have faith too.

Dave

 

[b0urgeoisie]

It's a theory that should be proven true or false.

What kind of experiment should we design to do that? What evidence should we collect to prove or disprove God's existence?

 

[davewhite04]

Yes, you are the one I quoted.

Ok. Nothing you have written would lead me to think that you're arrogant in this context, why did you ask?

Dave

 

[b0urgeoisie]

...and people are expected to believe it is true. That is silly.

You can believe or not nobody is making you do anything. What you are not allowed to do is force atheism on people who choose to believe. You are not allowed to restrict employment or any other thing because people choose to believe.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Bioethics is a subset of ethics & morality, for which there is already a forum. It could use some more activity.

Bioethics is too large to be only a subset. It is going to be the biggest debate around the world for some time. The questions will only grow as our knowledge does. With the genome project comlete and questions about stem cell research and cloning growing people will become very divided. When you consider abortion is a bioethical concern you must agree that the topic is too large to be a subset.

 

[water]

Science is like any other tool, but it is the user who is responsible, not science (the tool) itself.

While I said before you:

Science is a ***tool***. It has no inherent values or ethics -- but those ***given*** to it by the ***users*** of science.

Can you show that the illogic of religion didn’t interfere with his ability to think clearly at all times?

I just think it is pointless to make guesses about "how could it be if he had ..."

 

[thefountainhed]

I don't think there is any ethical debate involved in for example, human cloning without religion. What values are challenged in the instances that a human is cloned, or that a fetus enhanced? I do not think one can make the claim that there exists qualms in genetic manipulations/modifications without religion. Thus, in a debate on bioethics, religion and science and inexorably linked.

Now, are religion and science incompatible? I think that is entirely dependent on the kind of religion. Any relogion seeped in the supernatural cannot be compatible with science by definition.

 

[Jan Ardena]

thefountainhed,

Now, are religion and science incompatible? I think that is entirely dependent on the kind of religion. Any relogion seeped in the supernatural cannot be compatible with science by definition.

Religion and science are compatible when they stick to their respective genres. In fact one cannot be perfectly understood without the other.

Jan Ardena.

 

[thefountainhed]

Religion and science are compatible when they stick to their respective genres. In fact one cannot be perfectly understood without the other.

Since I hinted at the point that some religions may not be seeped in the supernatural, let's assume that you refer to religions that are based on the supernatural. And for argument sake, let's take as the whipping boy, Christianity:

The very foundation of Christianty, the belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent God, who cannot be experienced in the physical, and whose being cannot be proved within the physical world, is at odds with the whole basis of science: conclusions based on observation.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

I think for something to be supernatural it still must follow rules. But, those rules are only a greater manifestation of rules that we understand. I don't know exacltly what the nature of God is. But, I believe that He is bound by rules the same as anything else.
I think God has knowledge of all things. I think evidence for this can be found in the Bible. When Jesus was tempted to turn a stone into bread he refused. He may have known how but also knew that kind of reaction would effect more than just a stone. He would have had to surpress an immense amount of nuclear energy.
Perhaps those miracles that appear supernatural are only a demonstration of forces that have not been discovered. People who won't allow for a supreme being allow for all kinds of other irrational thinking. Who doesn't believe attitude can effect everything?

 

[thefountainhed]

What people choose to believe must lie outside the two fundamnetal paradigms. Besides you use the bible as if it were fact.

BTW,
this "People who won't allow for a supreme being allow for all kinds of other irrational thinking. " this not good for your argument. You implictly imply that allowing for God is irrational. By definition, scientic conclusions are rational, and therefore does not allow for a God is currently deined by Christianity.

 

[Cris]

Alpha,

Just because the God theory is unproven doesn't make it irrelevant. It's a theory that should be proven true or false.

There is no such thing as a god theory in the scientific sense. To become a theory evidence is required and there is none for gods. Even a hypothesis needs some evidential support.

Without evidence for gods all you have is speculative imagination, which is essentially indistinguishable from fiction, or the wizard of Oz.

 

[Cris]

B,

You can believe or not nobody is making you do anything.

OK but why bring this up?

What you are not allowed to do is force atheism on people who choose to believe.

Why not? There doesn’t appear to be any rules that stop religionists forcing their ideas on those who don’t want to believe, in fact it is a basic requirement of Christians to preach and convert others.

I’m not sure of your point here or why you are raising this issue.

You are not allowed to restrict employment or any other thing because people choose to believe.

That’s enforceable by law I believe. But why is that an issue here?