The God Denying Method

[Manimammal]

Reality sure has fallen victim to the human beings fantasy driven understanding of how the nature of the universe really works.

Modern science can prove a great theory against creationism, the problem is that 90% of the population are very much happy living with the fantasy that a higher power is in control of what is certainly an uncertain universe.

 

[Sin]

Good morning Jan,
I think you are missing the point...what was denied was the evidence in favor of God's existence (likely because it amounted to personal testimony). Any denying would be of invalid evidence for the object in contest: God. However it is not denial of god after it has already been concluded (at least with atheists) that God does not exist, that is plain to see. While you are technically right, i dont think that's what spidergoat was actually saying to begin with. What he is denying is religion? Possibly, however where does your God exist if not encapsulated in religion? And since religion can only be founded on religious texts and their derivatives (which we may consider to be his own words, as they are 'god breathed' 2 Timothy 3:16, no?)., a criticism of religion is a criticism of the gods behind the pages as well. To deny a particular religion is to deny particular god, which I suspect you have done with Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unless the God you place your faith in is of the abstract sort and accounts of his actions and traits cannot be cross-referenced, I welcome you to answer the questions about Elisha I asked earlier

 

[Balerion]

uh, gee, friend..how are you different than your description of me??

tell me why am i ignorant..

and if it is not coincidence..then what is it? and be sure not to appear the one with less intellect when you answer that question..

Because you've displayed an ignorance of a simple concept such as "we are just a part of the universe." You even gave the emoticon.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sin,

Good morning Jan,

Hello Sin.

I think you are missing the point...what was denied was the evidence in favor of God's existence (likely because it amounted to personal testimony).

That WAS my point.

However it is not denial of god after it has already been concluded (at least with atheists) that God does not exist, that is plain to see. While you are technically right, i dont think that's what spidergoat was actually saying to begin with.

Maybe so, but when that is taken inot consideration, it throws light upon
what he is actually saying.

What he is denying is religion? Possibly, however where does your God exist if not encapsulated in religion?

This question has nothing to do with actual God.
Asking for the existence of God, is purely a materialist concept.
The concept assumes that God exists in the same or similar way we do.
I suggest you learn about the nature of God, through a scripture of your choice, as it will save alot of time.

And since religion can only be founded on religious texts and their derivatives (which we may consider to be his own words, as they are 'god breathed' 2 Timothy 3:16, no?)., a criticism of religion is a criticism of the gods behind the pages as well.

Religion was previously taught by word of mouth, up until a few thousand
years ago.

To deny a particular religion is to deny particular god, which I suspect you have done with Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Learn about the nature of God, irregardless of the institute of Islam, Christianity, and whatever else there may be.
You will find all scripture define God with the same basic essentials one would
expect from such a being.

I welcome you to answer the questions about Elisha I asked earlier

If you are prepared to accept that that action was not the act of a loving
God, then you are prepared to accept the actions that were the act of a loving God, like bringing a child back to life. Yes?

jan.

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi


Dark junk was created to fix the errors found between current physics and what is observed.

Dark junk is proof positive the physics of mankind are wrong!

Otherwise, they would have predicted the matter/energy before the observations!

get over it

or

show me i am wrong (anyone)

This is how science works. Your statement is supportive of the scientific method, which modifies it's premises when new facts come to light.

that is correct; the method is sound, but some of the conclusions are off.

ex... someone suggesting nature "works as expected", is just so 'wrong' to ever claim.

The point i made was that often when our science is wrong, the community creates 'patches' until the principles are corrected of the old paradigm.

ex.... about 500 yrs ago, the world was thought to be the center, so most all math to support astronomy was geared that way. And as now, gravity is considered the greater force to define the observations but that is wrong too. (and the community don't know it yet) (gravity had never been defined by newton, einstein or the 'hadron' gang)

proof; to make the model of math work, the universe must have over 70% (plus) more junk (dark matter/energy). So the predicted frame is so far off, it is practically stupid. (cosmologically speaking)

That is reality!

Observation drives our understanding of physics, not some metaphysical idea about ultimate Truth.

reality only works ONE way; learn to understand that!

if observations were addressed first the physics would be far closer

ex.... life abuses the pants off of entropy; but do you follow the observational evidence, over the laws imposed to the math?

Meaning; is evolution a true pattern you can observe? If so, then the science should be written to define 'how it works' before suggesting it was a random, chaotic, uncertain accident within a 'soup of life'.

the laws make evolution stupid (eg.... are we all 78% dark matter/energy too that when we go potty it comes out our black hole)

How would science predict the need for galaxies to contain greater mass if they had not observed how they behave?

if the physics were correct, we should have had the model defined of the galaxy obervations, before the hubble (which proved just how wrong the math was)

the evidence stands; the people just won't square up! (be honest)

The science was not wrong,

who said 'science' was wrong?

it is the community, the people, the acceptance; the same complacent acceptance of 'laws' that most every religious believer maintains in their regime.

point being, the science is not the cause of error; people are. (and i am not talking about some conspiracy, i am talking about complacency (same issue with religious folks; they trust someone else over being flat out honest with themselves)

it was merely incomplete. It is incomplete even now,

yes and no.........

the missing link was the entanglement caused by energy (em) (meet your dark energy)

and yet it is the best way yet discovered by mankind to reveal the nature of the universe around us.

the math is not discovery; observational evidence is.

math is just a description and as such can represent rules but not impose them as laws if the evidence is incomplete of the model.

hence 2LoT is moot based on missing parameters of causality (the entanglement of mass, by energy; is no where in the mechanics)

reality is, the current models thereof are incomplete

not much to debate but a tough 'truth' to punch 'the community in the chops' with.

the world 'aint' flat

and life abuses entropy!

it is time for a paradigm shift and the only thing holding the community back are laws (kind of religious if is do say so myself)

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi
kind of what choice enables; the ability to learn from trial and error and record what was learned

in many ways, i agree

but like in religion some rules many will not break (2LoT) because some believe in the infallibility

of course, as knowledg evolved, new material evidence can over take beliefs and 'laws'



God is a word mankind created; nothing is taken from existence by any label.

But both teams (science/theology) must follow the same rules of integrity and fallibility in order to progress.

As usual, none of that makes any sense.

can someone else share to me what line in this is not making sense.

please!

 

[Jan Ardena]

can someone else share to me what line in this is not making sense.

please!

It's the way you put things.
Is english your first language?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Reality sure has fallen victim to the human beings fantasy driven understanding of how the nature of the universe really works.

Modern science can prove a great theory against creationism, the problem is that 90% of the population are very much happy living with the fantasy that a higher power is in control of what is certainly an uncertain universe.

Creationism isn't God.

jan.

 

[Bishadi]

It's the way you put things.
Is english your first language?

jan.

can you be specific on them lines?

english is my first and ONLY Language; but the principles of how i define are bound to existence, not beliefs nor accepted ideology; no matter how many like it

but every word is english.


for example i once posted a line item;

"Is existence defining itself?"

and to many that comment was a knee knocker but with enough material foundation of knowledge the comment is basic commen sense

so it is not the language, it is the depth i find lacking of the audiance.

i was taught as a kid, that if you do not understand something, learn more, ask questions, otherwise can the concept be comprehended.

but on this site, the people get personal rather than check themselves and ask questions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

can you be specific on them lines?

english is my first and ONLY Language; but the principles of how i define are bound to existence, not beliefs nor accepted ideology; no matter how many like it

but every word is english.


for example i once posted a line item;

"Is existence defining itself?"

and to many that comment was a knee knocker but with enough material foundation of knowledge the comment is basic commen sense

so it is not the language, it is the depth i find lacking of the audiance.

i was taught as a kid, that if you do not understand something, learn more, ask questions, otherwise can the concept be comprehended.

but on this site, the people get personal rather than check themselves and ask questions.

I can only go off my own experience with you.

Maybe you should show a little more mercy to us noodle-headz, by writing
in a style that can be easily understood.

jan.

 

[Bishadi]

I can only go off my own experience with you.

Maybe you should show a little more mercy to us noodle-headz, by writing
in a style that can be easily understood.

jan.

i asked if anyone can tell me what line item was tough to understand and you tell me it is a language issue but not a single line item on what specifically.

that is what shares the inadequacies of the opinions.

if the material is not understood, the idea of brushing it off as a language issue, shares that the intent and depth of the reader is 'less than good'

it is like the reader is assuming the writer is ignorant, when it is the level of inquiry that shares the reduced comprehension of the reader.

I am keeping it simple and why 'words' are being used rather than the math.

 

[Sin]

Jan dear, you'll have to explain in what manner you are a theist and what you mean by 'actual God' because it sounds to me that you do indeed defend an abstract deity or one of universalist flavour. If thats the case, my powers are too slight for the task of tackling what is undefined. However, like SkinWalker had similarly pointed out, any god that has apparent bearing on the world exists within religion and we therefore may actually be able to deny existence to them upon scrutiny of their own actions for inconsistency or otherwise, falsehoods. Think of this endeavour as doing God's (Christianity's God) work, until of course it is His turn to be surveyed, I am impartial. You've said the nature of god can be found in all religious texts while saying, while simultaneously denying that humans understand the meaning of existence, which, without this prerequisite, no reliable nature can truly be drawn from. Everywhere, God says "I am ____" and "I do ____", all indicating that he exists to retain a certain personality trait or to do a certain action. So I don't think it's a materialist concept at all, its a necessary premise to even be having a conversation about this. The problem lies in distinguishing impostors from what God may 'actually be like'. We are able to do this by cross-referencing alleged truths with each other (verses) and seeing how they do or do not support a consistent image of God.

I am more than prepared to accept that it was the action of a loving God, I expect it. By his own proclamation, He is love, but from love springs violent bear massacre of youths...? There is no reason to believe he brought them back to life, even then, the question would change to how God may go through tantrums that still violate his self-ascribed nature. Rectification after the fact does not change the fact.

 

[scifes]

Because you've displayed an ignorance of a simple concept such as "we are just a part of the universe." You even gave the emoticon.

now that i read cris's post again..i can see it's connection to bishadi's..which i didn't see before..cris's post was too general it didn't make sense in a million ways..knowing cris isn't stupid..i clarified..or is asking about something you don't know considered unintellegent now??

but..i'm still waiting for your answer to why you said usually the one defending faith is the one with less inellect..you said it wasn't a coincidence..and i asked you what is it then..well?

 

[Balerion]

now that i read cris's post again..i can see it's connection to bishadi's..which i didn't see before..cris's post was too general it didn't make sense in a million ways..knowing cris isn't stupid..i clarified..or is asking about something you don't know considered unintellegent now??

I only read that comment in the context of what he quoted, and his response, and I understood it perfectly. That's why your obvious confusion struck me.

but..i'm still waiting for your answer to why you said usually the one defending faith is the one with less inellect..you said it wasn't a coincidence..and i asked you what is it then..well?

Sorry, your writing is so poor that it's very hard to make out what you're saying sometimes. I apologize if I missed your question. I'm still not entirely sure what you're asking...but I'll give it a go anyway...

The reason it's not a coincidence is because, more often than not, the less intelligent the person is, the more likely they are to believe in a god. In my experience, people of higher intelligence are less likely to be religious. Even the ones who identify as Catholic or Christian don't really believe it, if you ask them.

I believe there is a direct correlation between intelligence and faith. It would make sense, considering both the origins of religion (our ignorance of the world around us) and how having faith today requires one to ignore the realities of the world. If a smart person does have faith, it's one hell of a dichotomy. It's like a hot chick who is into fat, unemployed men.

 

[Sin]

The origins of religion is far more complex than to attribute it as an attempt to explain the mysterious environment. It may have been founded with political/theocratic intentions and later adapted for explaining the unknown. There are many speculations but the world may never know.

Now when you say you 'believe' there to be a negative correlation between intelligence and religious propensity, do you say that with evidence and studies or the same lack of evidence you frown upon in the faithful? There are intelligent people on both sides, there are idiots on both sides. In either case, instead of accusing people of having inferior mental abilities a priori, demonstrate how what they believe is perniciously irrational and misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, you were ignorant at one point but have since been led away from it. Enlighten where you can but do not put down another.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The origins of religion is far more complex than to attribute it as an attempt to explain the mysterious environment. It may have been founded with political/theocratic intentions and later adapted for explaining the unknown. There are many speculations but the world may never know.

Now when you say you 'believe' there to be a negative correlation between intelligence and religious propensity, do you say that with evidence and studies or the same lack of evidence you frown upon in the faithful? There are intelligent people on both sides, there are idiots on both sides. In either case, instead of accusing people of having inferior mental abilities a priori, demonstrate how what they believe is perniciously irrational and misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, you were ignorant at one point but have since been led away from it. Enlighten where you can but do not put down another.

Even though it's not my argument, here is evidence between intelligence and religious propensity:

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm

 

[Balerion]

The origins of religion is far more complex than to attribute it as an attempt to explain the mysterious environment. It may have been founded with political/theocratic intentions and later adapted for explaining the unknown. There are many speculations but the world may never know.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're clearly speaking out of ignorance--as in, you haven't the first clue as to what you're talking about--yet that doesn't prevent you from chiming in. I mean, more power to you, but it's a bit ironic that a person who honestly doesn't even know how to approach the discussion would be taking a side in the matter.

What, exactly, are "theocratic" intentions?

The origin of religion should be obvious, if you knew the first thing about religion, which I'm guess you don't. There are many flood stories and stories of the earth shaking, multiple suns, rising from the dead, etc., etc.. Basically, religious texts are filled with stories cartooning-up things we would today find mundane, like brush fires and earthquakes. Rain itself is considered a fantastic phenomenon in the bible.

And again, the whole paragraph is bunk. You start by saying that the origin of religion is more complex than I say it is, and yet by the end of the paragraph you are saying that it's all speculation. Well, which is it? Is it that my assertion is incorrect, or are we all just speculating? How can you claim to know, and then claim nobody knows?

Now when you say you 'believe' there to be a negative correlation between intelligence and religious propensity, do you say that with evidence and studies or the same lack of evidence you frown upon in the faithful?

There's no need to put quotation marks (or apostrophes, as it were) around the word "believe". That implies that my belief in that opinion is in question, when it clearly isn't.

But to your point...there was a study co-authored by Helmuth Nyborg (who, in my opinion, is just an unimaginative cyborg...let that one sink it...yeah...) and Richard Lynn that correlated level of IQ with religiosity on a country level. According to the study, only 23 of the 137 countries samples had 20% or higher populations of atheists. According to Nyborg (the cyborg!) all of the 23 countries were among the highest IQs in the study.

I just read an article on this subject at the Telegraph website that cited a study from the 1990s that says only 7% of the American scientific community believes in a god.

It's tricky to determine exactly what the correlation between intelligence and religiosity is, since there are so many variances on religious faith and intelligence, but there are numerous other studies that find a direct correlation between the two. The most striking negative correlations are between, unsurprisingly, the intelligent and the intensely dogmatic.

There are intelligent people on both sides, there are idiots on both sides.

Obviously. And I inferred as much.

In either case, instead of accusing people of having inferior mental abilities a priori, demonstrate how what they believe is perniciously irrational and misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, you were ignorant at one point but have since been led away from it. Enlighten where you can but do not put down another.

I'm not accusing people of anything. I'm stating a fact. Read the studies that you so desperately want me to cite but that you're too lazy to look up for yourself. And I'm not putting down anyone, either. I was speaking generally in my conversation before you stepped in, and my comments toward you were simply observations based on your post, nothing more.

 

[Sin]

Such unexpected indignation from you JDawg...let me explain then. Without a hint of uncertainty, you claimed that the origin of religion was to explain what was unknown. That is an unwarranted reduction of religion, which has many aspects you neglected to consider in your original writing off of religion as explanatory in essence (hence, more complex).While religion has been used to explain what was unknown, it is also used to create order in society and it is also used as comfort and divine justice in a dangerous and uncertain world. The explanatory aspect would be a by-product of another use. I am not arguing from ignorance, but of understood unknowing, in other words, i understand that it cannot be known how it originated empirically or otherwise, whereas you claimed to know the case and that was that...

Theocratic-->Theocracy, rule by the religious, in order to offset natural inability to control the subjects of a land effectively, its possible leaders appealed to an abstract notion of authority of whom they had exclusive contact with and who gave them the divine mandate to corporeally punish those who disobeyed and would punish them horribly in the next life...

So I am told the origin of religion is obvious...obviously not, I am contesting your consideration of the different aspects of religion...Furthermore, you first talk about extraordinary phenomenon like global flooding and multiple suns (stuff that is absolutely not mundane) and then say that religion turns what is mundane into a testament to the mystical power of God. Having naturally impossible accounts of natural events in the Bible undermines the assertion that religion was explanatory in nature because only that which can actually happen naturally can be potentially explained, instead religion states what could not possibly happen and attributes it to god.

When I asked the question, I did not already have a predicted answer so I'm pleased you did tell me about the study. However, IQ does not equal intelligence. The citation is weakened by that distinction alone. I say this in no condescending way, but have you ever taken a real IQ test? It singles out a specific mental faculty. Intelligence is holistic. Hey Binet, what do you think? "The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured." You dont say...

I have a reason as to why I spoke with you as well, I was specifically interested in theists responses to examples of seeming contractions of what is collectively inerrant truths. You, if you were right, might deter them from speaking up at all. This talk about chiming and stepping in: this is a public forum, on top of that, this is a thread I started, everyone is supposed to chime in. You are more than welcome to your private conversations, however don't hold it against us we have something to say about your posts made on a site specifically facilitating intelligent dialogue.

 

[Bishadi]

me butting in

(fine debate gentlemen (gals))

Without a hint of uncertainty, you claimed that the origin of religion was to explain what was unknown. That is an unwarranted reduction of religion,

not really......

all anyone has to come to terms with is KNOWING IN FACT, that all words are the creations of mankind; then that reality is easy to comprehend.

Theocratic-->Theocracy, rule by the religious, in order to offset natural inability to control the subjects of a land effectively,

who needs control?

we are all equal; always have been (the divide is from the ignorant)

its possible leaders appealed to an abstract notion of authority of whom they had exclusive contact with and who gave them the divine mandate to corporeally punish those who disobeyed and would punish them horribly in the next life...

now you just wrote where the ignorance perhaps came from; the idea of control, power, judging and then the fear of death in the next life.

so your above comment inquiring to what is the source, of the religious material is easy to comprehend; the leaders imposed BS to control the populous.


And if any really know the history of Jesus, then know it is because of the drive to equality and personal responsibility to God, rather than church, is perhaps why they killed him.

no church or governing body runs 'we the people' as that is the root cause of the corruption to the religious doctrine; the leaders want to retain power!

and that is why, they reap the most horrid of judgment.

(see the fatima prophecy #3; the papacy is destroyed by the people)

it is the same exact claim from most every religion on earth; when the truth is unveiled the religions (rituals) are over!

and if you think logically, if the people are educated to understanding life as it is, in fact; then no fear, no control, no power minds; as the people can comprehend life and responsibility to existence, equally and all by themselves.

and once the few learn the truth, then NEVER again, can it be suppressed!

the wave will roll thru the body of mankind and not a damn thing any can do to stop it!


the reason the LOWER IQ folk are, 'less than' is based on the same issue with all intellectuals; the more knowledge a person is exposed to, the more bridges the mind can bring together, intelligently.

The IQ testing is the most obscure of all individual evaluations because environment is huge, rather than genetics as many believe.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I neglected to add the link for post #56. It has been added.