Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

[Quantum Quack]

And God was asked: "who created you?"
and God answered, "No one, as I have always been"...[chuckle]

As suggested earlier, in an infinite universe any point can be deemed it's center.... so why not call the Earth it's center...
only one condition: that the universe is indeed infinite in size... if it is finite then the above is rubbish.

If time is eternal then there can be no "before time" and therefore no moment of creation.
If time is finite then the above is rubbish.

 

[cole grey]

You're missing the point. The reason God is "logically" put at the beginning of things is that "things must have a creator." Positing an uncreated thing at the beginning of this is not a solution to the problem, but simply a pushing back of it. That's the reason rational human beings respond with "But then who created God?"
As for it being nonscientific, I call BS. It's unscientific because it is making a factual claim about the material origin of the universe. You don't get special classification just because there isn't a firm reasonable answer to the question.

absolutely wrong. First of all, who says all things must have a creator? Not me, nor any scientific law. Secondly, who says God is a thing? perhaps God is the system negative entropy goes into which allows our universe to organize as it does, and we personify it to give ourselves some sense of relation to it. If i say, "so and so happened, the underlying cause of said organization being some force we cannot currently measure", i am not contradicting any science in that statement. I am also not adding to science in any way. It is science plus an additional statement that is not science. Until i add some bad science, which I don't see any need to do, the additional ideas are NON-scientific.

Because you're arguing the same thing, just on a more localized level. Had you lived a few hundred years ago, you would no doubt be making this same case against the heliocentric model because of its implication that we are not special nor chosen and that we might very well have been some random accident. You only don't have a problem with this notion because you never believed the opposite was true, such as you do in this case.

no, you straw man me again because you are saying that i proposed something unscientific, which i did not. We might very well have been a random accident that set in motion evolution based on forces of utility-creation or survivability of organism. When would i ever say otherwise? If i propose that we aren't, there is nothing unscientific about it until science can prove me wrong. Here's letting you in on a much misunderstood reality, religion isn't science.

I disagree with the distinction. It seems that whenever you want to fudge reality to add your own little slice of faith, you call it NON-scientific so as not to be eligible to the scrutiny that usually comes with such claims. You want to, in other words, make claims that you don't have to support in any way whatsoever, and cry foul at them being criticized. They call that weaksauce in the hood. Okay, that's not true, but I'm sure it's true of some hood somewhere.

is this a farm? cause all i see all over are straw men. I appreciate my ideas being criticized. I am not the one pretending to "know" lots and lots of stuff.

As to the denigration bit... also don't have to think it makes you less of a caring, loving, appreciative person to accept that you're just brain activity in motion.

your emotions are "cool", and i appreciate them aesthetically, but if you aren't doing the caring, "you" don't exist, at least not in the way we have traditionally talked about humanity and choices, and ideas. Robots are cool but we won't call them human any time soon. Of course that is a whole discussion, just on what "you" is anyway, it can clearly be interpreted differently.

You're talking about a colloquial definition now, not an actual definition. And no, "scientifically-speaking" events we can't explain are not therefore miracles. "Miracle" has supernatural connotations, and as such have no place in serious discussion. You want to say someone had a miraculous recovery, go on ahead, so long as you mean it in the sense of "amazing" and "improbable," rather than "supernatural."

things happen that seem impossible, or at least insensible, not just improbable. call it whatever you want.

You're going to have to give me some examples of these "computer-aided artists" and how this relates at all to the Golden Ratio, and also explain to where this "equation" says that there should be more brown in a painting. I'm curious to see this.

people do it, i saw some of this computer generated art at an art gallery in san francisco, where it was explained to be based on number ratios programmed into a 3d generator. The gallery owner mentioned other artists doing the same type of thing. I don't have time to look it up. You can stupidly think i would make up such a thing or not. I didn't say there was an equation that points out there should be more brown. I was pointing out that these ideas of underlying mathematical guidelines have been tossed around for hundreds of years discussing a ratio that has been around for thousands. I am not the one who needs to be educated on that subject, and since neither of us would be stupid enough to say subjective is objective, we could probably just move on from that. I guess though, when you say you "know" there is no afterlife for example, you basically are claiming objective truth in an area where there is no proof. Until you admit your "knowledge" is subjective. After which I applaud you for finally seeing the inside of your box.

It does to an extent. It may not be able to tell us why you like this one painting and I don't--but it might be able to someday. You writing it off as impossible either speaks to your fear of science or your misunderstanding of it. Maybe both.

I would never say science can never explain x idea. Straw man. I never said science may not some day have an equation that accurately explains with a 98% accuracy for all various cultures genders etc., why we like certain colors in certain combinations or whatever. And there would be science about the art that breaks those rules. So what? When i have an ACTUAL misunderstanding about science or anything else, please feel free to point it out, until then, don't just try to suffocate me with straw men.

I'm glad you're so easily impressed, but all it takes is looking around. Do you know anyone who has experienced (er, is experiencing, rather) eternal bliss? Me neither.

Have you ever talked to anyone who is dead? Maybe they are experiencing it right now. Please feel free to disprove the idea. I know of many millions who have thought and talked about it. Does that make it true? no. Does te fact that nobody comes back even IMPLY something about the afterlife? Not to me it doesn't. The afterlife, if it exists, clearly doesn't have much to do with hanging around this place.

I am amazed that you think everything there is to know can be found out by looking around. "Look ma, the cows are sick because some old lady moved in next door, she must be a witch", is an observation which at one time was acceptable. "Looking around" is all we have to depend on at this point, but let's not pretend it answers all the questions - ESPECIALLY don't pretend that some of the observations we are making now will be absolutely trashed later. The way some people talk about THE CURRENT science, it is as if they are talking about science til the end of time and see no difference. there is a HUGE difference between what we know now, and science as a way of doing things.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Cole Grey,
have you ever heard of this quote:
"The absence of evidence is more telling about the person doing the looking than the actual absence of evidence."

or extreme dialetic:
a blind man says "I am blind and I see no light therefore light does not exist."
~ philosophy 101

 

[sideshowbob]

have you ever heard of this quote:
"The absence of evidence is more telling about the person doing the looking than the actual absence of evidence."

That's a good quote. It certainly applies to the creationists who don't see the evidence for evolution.

But when science-minded people talk about absence of evidence, it's in the sense of SHOW me the evidence. If you can't show it to me, don't claim you have any.

a blind man says "I am blind and I see no light therefore light does not exist."

Again, that typifies the creationist. They don't see the evidence for evolution; therefore evolution is false.

A science-minded person would say, I don't see the evidence for a Flood. SHOW me the evidence for a Flood. Then he/she would examine that evidence before deciding whether or not there was a Flood.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A science-minded person would say, I don't see the evidence for a Flood. SHOW me the evidence for a Flood. Then he/she would examine that evidence before deciding whether or not there was a Flood.

Whist I understand your perspective and that what you have said is the most common pov there is an problem with it. IMO.
In this example:
The lack of evidence of a flood is not conclusive evidence that a flood did not occur but possibly evidence that the looker can not see the evidence present.

Possibly the above is a poor example in that we are confident of what evidence for a flood should look like yes?

However possibly we fail to grasp the time of such events, speculated as a few [<10000] thousand years ago yet may be the story of Noah was originally about events a million years ago.. who knows? Possily it is merely a metaphor of an long space flight from a distant star system encrypted as a local God made event for those unable to deal with science [ superstitious belief in the act of God] and space flight.

who know? who really cares?

The point is that the lack of evidence may very well be attributed to many things and not that the reality of the event you seek evidence for is non-valid or actual.


The true scientist in my opinion will always state if evidence is unavailable that it is not currently possible to determine the value of the claim and simply put it aside in the "claims waiting for validation" file.
and that the strength of a theory is never 100% but graded according to the evidence presented.
In the case of evolution it is indeed a strong theory, however due to signifcant deficiencies regarding First cause and causation generally it would only score about an 60% confidence rating for me.
However biblical information scores even less...probably about 20% unless you take the work metaphorically/cryptically and combine science with it and suddenly it scores about 65%
I guess what I am suggesting is that anything that closes a scientist mind to opportunity is not a great thing..
any ways....

 

[Balerion]

absolutely wrong. First of all, who says all things must have a creator? Not me, nor any scientific law.

Man, is this thread really that hard to follow? Let's recap, because you apparently are having trouble. Religious person #1 says that God exists because everything must have a creator. Atheist #1 says if that is so, then who created God? Religious person says that God does not require a creator. Atheist says that this is a special pleading case. Understand? No one is actually saying God is recursive, they're saying he is in the context of the logical argument for him made by theists that he must exist because creation requires a creator.

Secondly, who says God is a thing? perhaps God is the system negative entropy goes into which allows our universe to organize as it does, and we personify it to give ourselves some sense of relation to it. If i say, "so and so happened, the underlying cause of said organization being some force we cannot currently measure", i am not contradicting any science in that statement. I am also not adding to science in any way. It is science plus an additional statement that is not science. Until i add some bad science, which I don't see any need to do, the additional ideas are NON-scientific.

For one, if you're saying God is a process, then you're just confusing matters by calling it God. But you don't really believe it is just a process, because there would be no will to such a thing, and thus no reason to have faith in it. In other words, if you believed God was something other than a persona, you wouldn't be a Christian. Secondly, positing that this process is at the helm is unscientific. You're making a factual claim about the natural world.

no, you straw man me again because you are saying that i proposed something unscientific, which i did not. We might very well have been a random accident that set in motion evolution based on forces of utility-creation or survivability of organism. When would i ever say otherwise? If i propose that we aren't, there is nothing unscientific about it until science can prove me wrong. Here's letting you in on a much misunderstood reality, religion isn't science.

You're not addressing the point I made, which is that you're arguing the same thing as those who argued against the heliocentric model because it diminished our special nature. You have said that measuring why we like what we like is degrading to our humanity for this same reason. Try to address the points made, not go off on unrelated tangents.

And no, just because you make a claim for which there is no scientific alternative does not mean that your statement was "non-scientific". It's still unscientific. You're making claims about the natural world. Saying that God exists is not a non-scientific statement, it's an unscientific one.

is this a farm? cause all i see all over are straw men. I appreciate my ideas being criticized. I am not the one pretending to "know" lots and lots of stuff.

I think you need to look up the definition of "straw man," because I'm certainly not using them here. Your actual arguments are easy enough to knock down.

your emotions are "cool", and i appreciate them aesthetically, but if you aren't doing the caring, "you" don't exist, at least not in the way we have traditionally talked about humanity and choices, and ideas. Robots are cool but we won't call them human any time soon. Of course that is a whole discussion, just on what "you" is anyway, it can clearly be interpreted differently.

Gibberish. Try again.

things happen that seem impossible, or at least insensible, not just improbable. call it whatever you want.

What does it matter how they seem? They aren't miracles.

people do it, i saw some of this computer generated art at an art gallery in san francisco, where it was explained to be based on number ratios programmed into a 3d generator. The gallery owner mentioned other artists doing the same type of thing. I don't have time to look it up. You can stupidly think i would make up such a thing or not.

Are you talking about fractal art?

I didn't say there was an equation that points out there should be more brown.

Yes you did.

but in the end, my statement that it moves me is MORE valid than a scientists equation that says there should be less brown in that painting, because the art of painting is ABOUT people, not molecules and light frequencies.

So it seems you simply have a poor understanding of the concept, and are now in full retreat.

I was pointing out that these ideas of underlying mathematical guidelines have been tossed around for hundreds of years discussing a ratio that has been around for thousands. I am not the one who needs to be educated on that subject, and since neither of us would be stupid enough to say subjective is objective, we could probably just move on from that. I guess though, when you say you "know" there is no afterlife for example, you basically are claiming objective truth in an area where there is no proof. Until you admit your "knowledge" is subjective. After which I applaud you for finally seeing the inside of your box.

Smoke-screen. You must be better than this, or the conversation is over.

I would never say science can never explain x idea. Straw man. I never said science may not some day have an equation that accurately explains with a 98% accuracy for all various cultures genders etc., why we like certain colors in certain combinations or whatever. And there would be science about the art that breaks those rules. So what? When i have an ACTUAL misunderstanding about science or anything else, please feel free to point it out, until then, don't just try to suffocate me with straw men.

Quoting you again:

deeper meaning or a sense of beauty may be conveyed to some through a painting, and to some others through a picture of a galaxy, we could argue about that all day. None of that argument would be science. Science doesn't cover that.

Your dishonesty is troubling, as is your seeming ignorance to the fact that your words don't simply disappear after you write them.

Have you ever talked to anyone who is dead? Maybe they are experiencing it right now.

Once someone is dead, there is no "they." "They" do not exist, and "That which has no existence can have no community."

As I've already said, there is no reason to believe consciousness is possible beyond death, and plenty of reason to believe it is not. Throwing out idiotic statements such as the one you just made does not help, because it requires me to accept the premise that there could possibly be such an existence, and you have all of your work cut out for you if you plan on convincing me.

Please feel free to disprove the idea.

If there is no such existence beyond death, disproving it would be impossible. All anyone can go on is the evidence, and what we have on that count says no.

I know of many millions who have thought and talked about it. Does that make it true? no. Does te fact that nobody comes back even IMPLY something about the afterlife? Not to me it doesn't. The afterlife, if it exists, clearly doesn't have much to do with hanging around this place.

More nonsense-talk. What the hell does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

I am amazed that you think everything there is to know can be found out by looking around. "Look ma, the cows are sick because some old lady moved in next door, she must be a witch", is an observation which at one time was acceptable. "Looking around" is all we have to depend on at this point, but let's not pretend it answers all the questions - ESPECIALLY don't pretend that some of the observations we are making now will be absolutely trashed later. The way some people talk about THE CURRENT science, it is as if they are talking about science til the end of time and see no difference. there is a HUGE difference between what we know now, and science as a way of doing things.

Talk about straw men!

 

[GeoffP]

- first off, "who made God?" is recursive only to those illogical people who say the universe MUST have a creator because watches don't make themselves

So you're stopping this imaginary recursiveness at the 3rd turtle down. Why? Oh yes, preconception. I forgot.

Clearly, saying there is something uncreated, and that that thing, or force, or whatever, created something is not recursive. The idea of an uncreated thing creating something is not UNscientific. It is merely NON-scientific, not testable, but not opposing science. There is no evidence for or against the concept.

I think it's unscientific in the process to which it's being considered in: you say that we naughty scientists have this recursive explanation series for observations. I merely put God on the end of it and asked "Why stop here?" I still have no reason from this thought experiment to stop there. So, in context of this argument, it is indeed unscientific, since you involve science at the debut.

- secondly, if you hear me say the word "proof" in connection with a philosophical statement, please bring it my attention so i can punch myself. If you want to say your life is meaningless and empty, go right ahead, just don't pretend science made it that way.

Forgive my layman's language. Let us say "support", then. Can you support the supposition our species was meant for anything greater?

- It is clearly not denigrating to humanity to say we are not the center of the universe. I have no idea why you would imagine i would think that. What is denigrating is to say that there is no meaning to a parent's love besides socialized synapse firing. It implies mechanistic behavior is the source of all action. If someone were to say, "it isn't about socialized synapse evolution at all", THAT would be UNscientific. Saying there is more to life than that is NON-scientific.

Back to your original point: you specified nothing about behaviour per se. Hominid "why" is not summed up by behaviour. My impression was that you were discussion hominid evolution in toto along the line leading up to us.

However, it would clearly not be denigrating to say that we were synapse firing alone, because that is what we are. The arrangement of this synapse firing differs among individuals for reasons of genetics, environment and the interaction between the two, in addition to transitory genetic and environmental vectors. Some of these vectors include morality. Until you can find a soul in there, it's hardly denigrating.

 

[cole grey]

Man, is this thread really that hard to follow? Let's recap, because you apparently are having trouble. Religious person #1 says that God exists because everything must have a creator. Atheist #1 says if that is so, then who created God? Religious person says that God does not require a creator. Atheist says that this is a special pleading case. Understand? No one is actually saying God is recursive, they're saying he is in the context of the logical argument for him made by theists that he must exist because creation requires a creator.

i am not the original poster. Someone that says, "god must exist because evolution is wack" has enough logical jumps they are not worth defending or engaging.

For one, if you're saying God is a process, then you're just confusing matters by calling it God. But you don't really believe it is just a process, because there would be no will to such a thing, and thus no reason to have faith in it. In other words, if you believed God was something other than a persona, you wouldn't be a Christian. Secondly, positing that this process is at the helm is unscientific. You're making a factual claim about the natural world.

I am not pretending to "know" what God is. Perhaps all we can imagine now is that it is a process, and the principle itself is great or powerful or beautiful enough to be called God. Whatever. I have ideas, they may be wrong. I am not proposing a test. Can you explain what is unscientific about that? You can call it "stupid" if you wish, and i could propose that you are wrong, but calling it unscientific is just plain wrong UNLESS you can show me an ACCEPTED scientific principle I am violating with my idea.

You're not addressing the point I made, which is that you're arguing the same thing as those who argued against the heliocentric model because it diminished our special nature. You have said that measuring why we like what we like is degrading to our humanity for this same reason. Try to address the points made, not go off on unrelated tangents.

I would say that our consciousness gives us a very special nature, and it has nothing to do with what planet we are on or any of that crap. I never said that "measuring" anything is degrading to anyone, and wouldn't. That is a straw man. I know what a straw man is, and please note that every time i point you out building one i tell you exactly what i mean.

And no, just because you make a claim for which there is no scientific alternative does not mean that your statement was "non-scientific". It's still unscientific. You're making claims about the natural world.

i am making claims about a metaphysical world that may exist, and may have an effect on the natural world, in a way that relates to current scientific ideas or perhaps other ideas that are as yet unknown. Again, please tell me exactly what SPECIFIC scientific law, or even a scientifically supported thesis, that conflicts with my idea, so we can get past that.

Are you talking about fractal art?

no. numerical ratios plugged into a program that designs 3d visuals

Yes you did. So it seems you simply have a poor understanding of the concept, and are now in full retreat.

that was a hypothetical. I don't know the ACTUAL equation, or of one. Let me clarify what i was saying and haven't retreated from, and feel free to point out any flaw
- science NOW doesn't cover color aesthetics satisfactorily, and my opinion is more valid than what is available, and i certainly am not going to waste a bunch of time hunting the internet for something that may or may not exist which i consider less valid than my subjective opinion.
- science may someday have an equation for how much brown to put in a painting, at which time my impression will still be more valid than a computer's decision on whether the painting has the right amount of brown, because art is a subjective experience, AS IS religion, AS IS your philosophy, AS IS mine, while we have agreed that SCIENCE will not include merely subjective data, but rather has to be testable.

If there is no such existence beyond death, disproving it would be impossible. All anyone can go on is the evidence, and what we have on that count says no.

I am not the one who "knows" things. I am not proving anything right now, nor do i think i could prove anything about what happens after we die. You are free to TRY to disprove my idea that science has an incomplete handle on what happens after we die, since you propose to "know" stuff.

Talk about straw men!

ok. I shouldn't have said you thought "everything" could be found out by looking around, but rather that knowledge of life after death can be disproved by looking around. You did say this "I'm glad you're so easily impressed, but all it takes is looking around." Does that not imply that there is no other process necessary, BESIDES looking around. That is usually what people mean when they say "all it takes".

 

[Quantum Quack]

However, it would clearly not be denigrating to say that we were synapse firing alone, because that is what we are. The arrangement of this synapse firing differs among individuals for reasons of genetics, environment and the interaction between the two, in addition to transitory genetic and environmental vectors. Some of these vectors include morality. Until you can find a soul in there, it's hardly denigrating.

well as an armchair scientist you should then be able to quantifiably determine the causation and mechanics of what is dramatically described in this music video clip and happens to be a rather common occurance world wide...

care to have a go?
and by all means include the musical values and lyrical content.

[video=youtube;S4kzGhDEURA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4kzGhDEURA[/video]
Independant synaptic firing... bah! [ chuckle]

and the blind man sayeth: "I can not see the light so there is no light"

 

[cole grey]

So you're stopping this imaginary recursiveness at the 3rd turtle down. Why? Oh yes, preconception. I forgot.

No, I don't propose everything is created. Maybe it isn't. If i don't propose the universe MUST be created, there is no recursion. Something could be created by an uncreated, and within that created universe something else could evolve in such a way that we could call it uncreated, and that thing could create things. Not sure what the emphasis is on things having to be created.

I think it's unscientific in the process to which it's being considered in: you say that we naughty scientists have this recursive explanation series for observations. I merely put God on the end of it and asked "Why stop here?" I still have no reason from this thought experiment to stop there. So, in context of this argument, it is indeed unscientific, since you involve science at the debut.

haha i like how you take the time to to qualify the context of your statement. Just to be clear, how do i involve science when i talk about the concept of an uncreated being creating a universe?

Forgive my layman's language. Let us say "support", then. Can you support the supposition our species was meant for anything greater?

sartre kind of sums up one support when he says that man is "anguish" - I believe his intention, at least part of it, is to say there is responsibility for a person's action, therefore there is a man that can be better than the man he is now, or worse. Unless we can agree that people are perfect as they are, we must say they could be something better. If man can't be anything but exactly what he is, he has no responsibility, so what is there to be anguished about? If we didn't think we could do better, why are so many billions always trying to do better? They could be wrong, granted, but I think this is one support for responsibility or some type of "greatness" differing from machines or various animals. This is intended as a philosophical statement, not a religious one.

Back to your original point: you specified nothing about behaviour per se. Hominid "why" is not summed up by behaviour. My impression was that you were discussion hominid evolution in toto along the line leading up to us. However, it would clearly not be denigrating to say that we were synapse firing alone, because that is what we are. The arrangement of this synapse firing differs among individuals for reasons of genetics, environment and the interaction between the two, in addition to transitory genetic and environmental vectors. Some of these vectors include morality. Until you can find a soul in there, it's hardly denigrating.

I would say that we already found a "soul" if not the soul. I propose that we aren't "just" chemical reactions, because we choose to attach deeper meaning because we have the consciousness to do so. And because we have the consciousness we are actually responsible to do so. If you choose not to attach a meaning beyond, "synapse 218,222,324 just fired" that is ok. I can't prove the meaning, just give reasons for it.

 

[wynn]

I am not pretending to "know" what God is. Perhaps all we can imagine now is that it is a process, and the principle itself is great or powerful or beautiful enough to be called God. Whatever. I have ideas, they may be wrong.

Secondly, who says God is a thing? perhaps God is the system negative entropy goes into which allows our universe to organize as it does, and we personify it to give ourselves some sense of relation to it.

Do you believe in God?

I had the impression that you do.


If you do believe in God, I'd have some further questions for you.

The afterlife, if it exists, clearly doesn't have much to do with hanging around this place.

Well, places like this forum are some of the few venues at which the topic of afterlife is discussed, at least in some ways.

 

[cole grey]

Do you believe in God?

Do I believe in "a" God, would be a better question, because i don't know what you mean by "God".

Well, places like this forum are some of the few venues at which the topic of afterlife is discussed, at least in some ways.

i meant "this place" the current place of existence, not sciforums. Also the afterlife as an experience, not as a concept. You were probably just making a joke?

 

[wynn]

Do I believe in "a" God, would be a better question, because i don't know what you mean by "God".

Of course, I understand that.

I'm just wondering whether you would ever say about yourself that you "believe in God" (whatever "God" may mean to you). Ie. whether you would use that phrase "I believe in God."

i meant "this place" the current place of existence, not sciforums. Also the afterlife as an experience, not as a concept. You were probably just making a joke?

I wasn't joking.

And for two, why would our current place of existence somehow be disconnected from the afterlife or eternity? Surely there has to be some kind of connection between the now and the after (otherwise, we're in some kind of chaotism, to say the least).

 

[Jan Ardena]

sideshowbob,

And if you make a decision that doesn't mesh with the communal perceived reality, it's called "mental illness".

No it's not. It's simply ''a decision that doesn't mesh with the communal perceived reality''.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

One, Science and theism are different, but there is overlap in what they try to explain.
All religions have a kind of creation story, and many posit explanations for natural phenomenon, and neuroscience is learning more and more about what makes religion work on a biological level. In that sense, they kind of are warring factions, even though science is pitching a shutout. They don't have to be opposed in practice, but certainly anywhere religion attempts explain the natural world, science debunks it.

You know there is a difference between ''theism'' and ''religion'', right?
Or maybe not!

Can you put me on ignore please?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Gorlitz,

Hi Jan, Sorry you didn't seem to like my post much.

You're quite right, I didn't like it. But that's not what fuelled my response.

It was not mean't to be offensive or really even disparaging of religion.
I was just trying to understand things that to me made no sense.

Well, it sounded quietly offensive, to me.

After careful consideration you've convinced me with your first point that I was indeed wrong.
I realise now that most people don't choose to believe in God, they can't, they're not able to make that choice
because they are simply too young to understand,

We cannot just ''believe in something'' because we want to.
The idea of brainwashing, or indoctrination, outside of wanting to control people,
is for the purpose of inducing belief, naturally, within the people. This may work on some
(most probably those who are themselves naturally inclined to the ideas), but for the most part,
there is usually a backlash, as people eventually realise things for themselves.

Belief, has to be real, not faked.

most people it would seem come to religion and believing in
God because of their parents when they are very young.

Not really.
By that logic, most people would want to dress like their parents, and dance like their parents,
but that's not the case. If someone believes in God, then they ''believe'' in God. If they don't believe in God,
but say they do, then their real position is 'they don't believe in God', for to believe in God, one must actually believe in God.
Do you understand where I'm coming from?

We wouldn't accept that very young children are capable
of making other major decisions so why would we accept they are capable of making a choice over whether or not they
believe in a supreme being. So you are in fact correct I was in error in thinking people choose to believe in God.
I must say though I do find this very disturbing.

You're filtering.
You're prepared to accept something I say because you can make use of it through the filtering process, adding yet another thing
to validate your position.

I dare you to take those spectacles off, and discuss using the actual words.

Your second point though is somewhat confusing, you seem to think my reasoning is based on the misconception that my understanding of all relgious traditions are christian ones, then asking if all my reasoning is reliant on such a fallacy. Well no that's not how my reasoning is centred because I'm not operating under that fallacy, I think this is more down to confusion over how what I was actually saying is being interpreted.

Nope. No confusion. It was all Christian.
It's all part of the programming.

I was only speculating on this attitude as I found it very difficult to understand. That said I would like to point out that I believe there are far more religeous people that believe in the merits of science than those that don't.

This is about people not buying into ''darwinian evolution'', not science.
Alot of people don't buy into it, because they've come to realise that it's nothing more than
a belief system for people who are anti-god, and other groups that derive some kind of benefit from that position.

IOW, they don't regard it as ''science''.

Finally, I'm again sorry you find my views "dumb-ass", but I am trying to learn about both science and religion but feel we should all accept people have different views. I find it interesting to learn why people hold these views. I hope in time I do realise what you mean and may even find something cogent about it.

The first thing to understand is that ''religion'' and ''theism'' are as different as mechanics, and car entusiasts.
Religion pertains to how we live our lives. If we believe in God, then we live accordingly, and vice versa.
Theism means one believes in God, period. That doesn't have to include being part of a ''religious institute''.
Science is a way to understand the world we live in. It cannot go beyond the boundaries of materialism, lest it becomes not science.
The individual person is a material being, but also a spiritual being, and can learn from both factions, providing (both factions) are being true to their genre.

The truth, is what all intelligent people seek.

jan.

 

[cole grey]

I'm just wondering whether you would ever say about yourself that you "believe in God" (whatever "God" may mean to you). Ie. whether you would use that phrase "I believe in God."

i tend to believe in God.

why would our current place of existence somehow be disconnected from the afterlife or eternity? Surely there has to be some kind of connection between the now and the after (otherwise, we're in some kind of chaotism, to say the least).

unless you believe in ghost activity and that it consists of people from the "other side", i think it is pretty clear that any souls that may have continued on aren't coming back to interact with us. That doesn't say there is no connection, I am sure the initial living being must have some influence on the afterlife being, if such a thing exists.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

What does wack mean?

 

[wynn]

i tend to believe in God.

?
Given what you've said earlier, it's not clear how it can be possible for you to believe in God - namely, given that you are not sure who or what precisely God is.
How can you believe in God, if you're not sure who or what God is?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What does wack mean?

It means ''rubbish'', nutty, or ''not good''.

''His ideas are ''whack''!

jan