The joys of life without God

[lightgigantic]

James R

Guess I got sidetracked

“ So what causes a star - tell me ”



That's a strange way of putting the question. Are you asking "How do stars form?" or something else? Be specific.

I am assuming that if you know how stars are formed you can tell me what is the intial cause

“ Last year Science Journal published 125 questions "What we don't know"
amongst them are
What is the universe made of?
What is the nature of gravity?
How do planets form? ”



Did you read that article?

It elaborated in some detail what aspects of these things are known and unknown. Your attempt to claim that we know nothing about these questions is easily refuted just by reading the article.

There are three things you cannot be a "little bit" of in science
1 - a little bit dead
2 - a little bit pregnant
3 - a little bit wrong

if you are only half right what does that mean?

“ Molecular evolutionists have never seriously tried to explain consciousness, because the symptoms of consciousness awareness are simply beyond the realm of molecular description - in other words what if the gap cannot be filled by analysis of dead matter? ”



The level of description at which you examine something is always something you choose depending on what features you consider important. If I want to know the essential features of a tennis ball as it pertains to the game of tennis, I don't look at the ball on a molecular level and start my description with "A tennis ball is a combination of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms..."

Similarly, when it comes to consciousness, people generally approach it first at a general level. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, best understood in a simple way at a level above molecular biology.

Agreed

“ To quote bohr "An analysis of the very concept of explanation would naturally begin and end with a renunciation as to explaining our own conscious activity" - since bohr felt that everything could be explained by quantum theory he had no choice but to "renounce" consciousness. ”



Can you provide the context of that quote, please? (i.e. quote the entire paragraph rather than one sentence.) I can't tell from this amount of text what Bohr was really trying to say.

Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge p11

“ so to get back to the original question whether scientific knowledge comes from science or people ..... ”



I've already answered that one. Did you re-read my response? Did you understand it?


“ ......you seem to be saying that it is people (scientists) that give us knowledge in science ”



Science is a human enterprise. It's factual content is obtained by people.

I can't see why you are laboring to sort out this simple matter. What's so difficult for you?

If I am labouring it is because you seem to have swung keel from your original statement about the nature of scientific knowledge

“ “ It usually means we have obtained new insights based on new evidence. That isn't guesswork, either. ”



It does however indicate that the previous body of knowledge that is superceeded is guesswork ”



Not at all. It simply means that the conclusions arrived at previously were mistaken or incomplete.

So if I see a rope that looks like a snake and scream "snake" it doesn't innvolve a false basis?
Its ironic - on this thread you are advocating that science never makes guesses and on the other thread cris is taking the exact opposite stance

“ Well I may have a different set of morals - my case might be different - you however said that you do unto others, and it is obvious that you don't... ”



You presume too much. You don't know me or what I do or don't do.

Its only in reference to your "Do unto others" moral - I pointed out that you don't in fact do that because you don't treat the starving members of other people's family members like you treat your own.
Remember I am just examining the logical premises for your statements - as far as atheistic persons go (from what I have encountered here so far) I can understand that you are possessed of steady intelligence and all fine character etc etc - I am just trying to determine the qualifying factors for atheistic morality because from what you have given me so far there are none.

“ You seem to be saying that it is enough to merely think that doing good unto others is enough to make one moral. ”



I have no idea how you managed to reach that conclusion. Regardless, you're wrong.

The instance is that you are failing to be moral by the standards of morality you indicated (Do unto others) - so either you are immoral (which I don't think BTW) or you have no means to qualify morality beyond its notion as an ideal (in other words you have no means to determine the gradations or varieties of morality)

“ From what I have understood of morals regarding atheism (from your own example) and the morals of theism they are completely different. ”



Then I suggest you look into the matter more careful. Go off and read some atheist material on morality, and I think you will find many parallels to religious morality. There's plenty of stuff on the web where you can begin your education.

The difference is that theistic morality is qualified by being conscious of god - for instance a theist is considered charitable to the extent that they give charity in the consciousness that what they are giving is actually th e property of gods and not their own and the purposes for which they are giving charity is for establish what god desires in this world and develop detachment from the fruits of material activity (which is the binding force of ignornace)- they do not act under th e illusion that they are re-establishing order in the universe, since that is god's perogagtive - one can therefore be giving millions of $$ in charity and be considered immoral - another could be giving 2$ and be considered highly moral- obviously this paradigm does not operate in atheism

“ So we can't even produce a rain cloud but I am supposed to accept that you can tell me how to build a star (when you have only observed stars form with a mechanism that operates on principles of uniformity that cannot be verified)???? ”



Wrong on two counts:

1. We can produce a rain cloud. Every time you step out of the shower in a cloud of steam, you have produced something which is in essence a rain cloud.

So creating the essence of a rain cloud is obviously not the same as creating an actual rain cloud - at the very least they exhibit different phenomena

2. The "principles of uniformity" you mention, known to science as the laws of physics, can be and in fact are very well verified indeed, both in general and in terms of their specific relation to star formation.

How do you respond to cris's ideas on this

It is the strength of science that it leaves everything open to question. The only way we could declare anything an absolute is when we know absolutely everything there is to know. Until then we cannot be absolutely sure that whatever we declare as an absolute does not have a flaw no matter how subtle.

Maybe you need to learn some science. Making silly incorrect statements doesn't give your arguments much credibility.

At least I could be forgiven for thinking so because I seem to be getting more than one response on the idea

“ Well if you were going for brain surgery would you rather someone who was experienced doing th e operation or someone with theoretical knowledge? ”



There are two types of knowledge, sometimes called "procedural" and "declarative" knowledge. A surgeon needs both.

I take it you are after more than just theory then if you are to make an appearance on the surgical table?

“ “ But so far, intelligent design theorists, to take one example, haven't produced any useful research outcomes. ”



Probably because they run the risk of getting fired the moment they mention the word "intelligent design" ”



Not at all. There is huge funding and political support for intelligent design in the United States. For example, look up the "Discovery Institute", which employs and otherwise funds many ID propagandists.

And what of a lecturer in some university ? IN otherwords why do such "enclaves" exist to cater for ID (which BTW are a drop in the ocean compared to other funding bodies)

“ In other words you refuse to entertain ideas that run parallel to theism simply because they are theistic? ”



No. I'm quite happy to entertain ideas which run "parallel".

“ But even if you make the perfect arrangement for life by material arrangement, life may or may not appear... ”



On what do you base that conclusion?

Things do not always take birth despite the attempt to secure all the required material variables for life to appear

“ ...and once life has appeared it can go at any moment, despite all attempts to house it in a suitable material environment ”



Life going is always accompanied by physical changes, as I pointed out earlier.

The ultimate and most unavoidable and unexpected one being death


“ “ There are physical differences between a dead body and a live one. These differences can be measured objectively. ”






“ Suppose we were looking for a fire (soul) - Suppose I said if you look for something that is hot, smokey and emitting light (living symptoms) that is actually a fire.
How would that be begging the question?
Inother words you are assuming that the symptoms of the soul (consciousness - or being alive) are the cause of the soul, when it is the other way around - the difference between the soul and "being alive" is that the soul is the cause, just as fire is the cause of the smoke, heat and light. ”

“ Here is a quote from Roger Penrose

The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each os, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook" ”



I agree. But notice the big "if".

It was given more as an indication of what ID can offer to the progress of science, since you were adamant that it had nothing to offer

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

I am assuming that if you know how stars are formed you can tell me what is the intial cause

How far back do you want to trace things? To the initial gas cloud from which a star forms? From the formation of the gas in that cloud in the first place? To the formation of the universe which led to the dust?

I thought we'd already canvassed these matters.

There are three things you cannot be a "little bit" of in science
1 - a little bit dead
2 - a little bit pregnant
3 - a little bit wrong

Not true for number 3. For example, Newton's laws of motion are "a little bit wrong", but they served perfectly well for 400 years before that was discovered. In fact, for most purposes, they are still used today. They are an excellent approximation to Einstein's physics, within certain limits. This is an example of one thing in science which is "a little bit wrong". Aristotle's laws of motion, in comparison, are "a lot wrong". And when it comes down to it, chances are that Einstein's laws are, themselves, a little but wrong.

What we see in science is progress to better and better understandings - from a lot wrong, to quite wrong, to a little bit wrong, to a tiny bit wrong. Or, if you want to look at it in a different way, from not at all right to a bit right, to quite right, to almost entirely right.

If I am labouring it is because you seem to have swung keel from your original statement about the nature of scientific knowledge

I don't think so.

So if I see a rope that looks like a snake and scream "snake" it doesn't innvolve a false basis?

Yes. You are mistaken about the rope. On the other hand, if you see a rope and your scream "piece of string!" are you just as wrong as if you cry "Snake!"?

Its ironic - on this thread you are advocating that science never makes guesses and on the other thread cris is taking the exact opposite stance

No. I think we're in agreement.

Its only in reference to your "Do unto others" moral - I pointed out that you don't in fact do that because you don't treat the starving members of other people's family members like you treat your own.

I don't have the resources to support the entire world.

And how is your treatment of other people's starving families any different or "more moral" than mine? Aren't we the same?

Remember I am just examining the logical premises for your statements - as far as atheistic persons go (from what I have encountered here so far) I can understand that you are possessed of steady intelligence and all fine character etc etc - I am just trying to determine the qualifying factors for atheistic morality because from what you have given me so far there are none.

I'm not sure what you require in terms of "qualifying factors".

The difference is that theistic morality is qualified by being conscious of god - for instance a theist is considered charitable to the extent that they give charity in the consciousness that what they are giving is actually th e property of gods and not their own and the purposes for which they are giving charity is for establish what god desires in this world and develop detachment from the fruits of material activity (which is the binding force of ignornace)- they do not act under th e illusion that they are re-establishing order in the universe, since that is god's perogagtive - one can therefore be giving millions of $$ in charity and be considered immoral - another could be giving 2$ and be considered highly moral- obviously this paradigm does not operate in atheism

An atheistic version would be that the atheist is moral in giving charity if he does what is reasonable given his own means, his need to support his own family etc. As far as I can see, exactly the same standards are applied by theists.

So creating the essence of a rain cloud is obviously not the same as creating an actual rain cloud - at the very least they exhibit different phenomena

I don't understand what you're claiming here. A collection of water vapour is a collection of water vapour.

How do you respond to cris's ideas on this

"It is the strength of science that it leaves everything open to question. The only way we could declare anything an absolute is when we know absolutely everything there is to know. Until then we cannot be absolutely sure that whatever we declare as an absolute does not have a flaw no matter how subtle."

I agree.

Every idea in science is open to question and revision in light of new knowledge. Nothing is set in stone. There is no scientific dogma which is unchallengable. That is a strength of science.

At least I could be forgiven for thinking so because I seem to be getting more than one response on the idea

It's interesting that you think that, but I think you're wrong. My views and Cris's are the same, as far as I can tell.

I take it you are after more than just theory then if you are to make an appearance on the surgical table?

Yes. What was your point again?

And what of a lecturer in some university ? IN otherwords why do such "enclaves" exist to cater for ID (which BTW are a drop in the ocean compared to other funding bodies)

Because ID is so widely regarded as unscientific and religion masquerading as science! I think you'll find that it is mostly universities with explicitly religious aims that teach ID as science.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

That's the utilitarian argument for the existance of God. If one believes in God, one lives a moral life and is rewarded in heaven. If one does not believe in God, and lives sinfully, one risks eternal damnation if you are wrong. If you believe in God and he does not exist, you've lived a moral life for nothing. But is that such a bad thing?

exactly...

just the IDEA.. of a GOD... serves to improve mankinds general behavior, and has lead to our modern world.

a world, based on huministic peaceful values.. which since the dawn of man... until this age.. was always taugh and instilled in people by religions...

some say morality has nothing to do with religion.

that maybe so... but religion has alot to do with morality.
the teaching of morality, its promotion, and defense.


even if there is no GOD, the belief in a GOD is beneficial for all humankind.

a world full of atheists... would be a world wide sodom and gommorah.

-MT

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

“ I am assuming that if you know how stars are formed you can tell me what is the intial cause ”



How far back do you want to trace things? To the initial gas cloud from which a star forms? From the formation of the gas in that cloud in the first place? To the formation of the universe which led to the dust?

I thought we'd already canvassed these matters.

So it seems it is more correct to say that science has observed a portion of the development of stars

“ There are three things you cannot be a "little bit" of in science
1 - a little bit dead
2 - a little bit pregnant
3 - a little bit wrong ”



Not true for number 3. For example, Newton's laws of motion are "a little bit wrong", but they served perfectly well for 400 years before that was discovered. In fact, for most purposes, they are still used today. They are an excellent approximation to Einstein's physics, within certain limits. This is an example of one thing in science which is "a little bit wrong". Aristotle's laws of motion, in comparison, are "a lot wrong". And when it comes down to it, chances are that Einstein's laws are, themselves, a little but wrong.

What we see in science is progress to better and better understandings - from a lot wrong, to quite wrong, to a little bit wrong, to a tiny bit wrong. Or, if you want to look at it in a different way, from not at all right to a bit right, to quite right, to almost entirely right.

But then you have a foolish premise for understanding, since what is currently "almost entirely right" will get down graded to aristotle's "a lot wrong" given enough time.

Inother words at no point do you have a foundation for true knowledge - nor can knowledge ever be qualified- it is just like existing in a paradigm that innvolves scale but not size

“ So if I see a rope that looks like a snake and scream "snake" it doesn't innvolve a false basis? ”



Yes. You are mistaken about the rope. On the other hand, if you see a rope and your scream "piece of string!" are you just as wrong as if you cry "Snake!"?

Obviously,
but the point is when you make statements in regard to how science is not a guess, like

Not at all. It simply means that the conclusions arrived at previously were mistaken or incomplete. ”

how is that different from the snake/rope eg?

“ Its ironic - on this thread you are advocating that science never makes guesses and on the other thread cris is taking the exact opposite stance ”



No. I think we're in agreement.

So accroding to the allegations of contemporary science it can be both truthful or false according to its interests?

“ Its only in reference to your "Do unto others" moral - I pointed out that you don't in fact do that because you don't treat the starving members of other people's family members like you treat your own. ”



I don't have the resources to support the entire world.

But yuo do have the resources to bring your famly down to a more humble level of opulence and thus enable to help others raise their standards

And how is your treatment of other people's starving families any different or "more moral" than mine? Aren't we the same?

Yes they are different because I incorporate the idea that god is the ultimate controller and maintainer within my acts of charity

“ Remember I am just examining the logical premises for your statements - as far as atheistic persons go (from what I have encountered here so far) I can understand that you are possessed of steady intelligence and all fine character etc etc - I am just trying to determine the qualifying factors for atheistic morality because from what you have given me so far there are none. ”



I'm not sure what you require in terms of "qualifying factors".

You have no means to determine to what degree a person is moral, since the ability to even come near to fulfilling what they establish as moral is obviously not one of them


“ The difference is that theistic morality is qualified by being conscious of god - for instance a theist is considered charitable to the extent that they give charity in the consciousness that what they are giving is actually th e property of gods and not their own and the purposes for which they are giving charity is for establish what god desires in this world and develop detachment from the fruits of material activity (which is the binding force of ignornace)- they do not act under th e illusion that they are re-establishing order in the universe, since that is god's perogagtive - one can therefore be giving millions of $$ in charity and be considered immoral - another could be giving 2$ and be considered highly moral- obviously this paradigm does not operate in atheism ”

An atheistic version would be that the atheist is moral in giving charity if he does what is reasonable given his own means, his need to support his own family etc. As far as I can see, exactly the same standards are applied by theists.

Then you have defined a framework for morality that denies the possibility of treatings others as one would like to be treated since the fundamental principle is to establish and maintain one's family - as for your vision of theistic charity, your are only viewing the shadow of it

“ So creating the essence of a rain cloud is obviously not the same as creating an actual rain cloud - at the very least they exhibit different phenomena ”



I don't understand what you're claiming here. A collection of water vapour is a collection of water vapour.

But no matter how hot I have my shower the cloud vapour never rains

Every idea in science is open to question and revision in light of new knowledge. Nothing is set in stone. There is no scientific dogma which is unchallengable. That is a strength of science.

But at the same time it resists ideas that operate on principles outside of the established axiomatic fundamentals - for instance according to contemporary axiomatic fundamentals, the "self" does not exist

- doesn't this strike you as strange, particularly since you cannot acually answer my question unless you have a sense of self to respond with?

“ I take it you are after more than just theory then if you are to make an appearance on the surgical table? ”



Yes. What was your point again?

Theoreticaly knowing something is a long way from actualy knowing something in practice - so to say things like we know how stars are made, we know how life comes from matter, we know how evolution takes place etc etc is a bit misleading in the absence of practical application - it wouldn't be so bad if these ideas were left on the theory table, but when they get absorbed as fact it is just a type of academic cheating

“ And what of a lecturer in some university ? IN otherwords why do such "enclaves" exist to cater for ID (which BTW are a drop in the ocean compared to other funding bodies) ”



Because ID is so widely regarded as unscientific and religion masquerading as science!

So in other words there is no room for ID scientists to do the necessary research in their fields - the case is closed before the book is opened -

I think you'll find that it is mostly universities with explicitly religious aims that teach ID as science.

Again - enclaving is a natural response to bigotted segregation

 

[KennyJC]

So in other words there is no room for ID scientists to do the necessary research in their fields - the case is closed before the book is opened -

There is not and will not be evidence for that. I doubt there is a "(c) God", anywhere to be found. I'm sure many 'theist scientists' have desperately searched for evidence and are searching for evidence and will continue to search for evidence, so the book is opened and will remain opened, but won't be filled with evidence. All they have is "look how detailed the eye is..." etc...

 

[KennyJC]

a world full of atheists... would be a world wide sodom and gommorah.

The worlds secular nations are behaving in a far more peaceful manner than those dominated by religious values. So how can you make such a statement considering the evidence shows society gets by well enough without everyone being insanely superstitious?

 

[wsionynw]

Theoreticaly knowing something is a long way from actualy knowing something in practice - so to say things like we know how stars are made, we know how life comes from matter, we know how evolution takes place etc etc is a bit misleading in the absence of practical application - it wouldn't be so bad if these ideas were left on the theory table, but when they get absorbed as fact it is just a type of academic cheating

So in other words there is no room for ID scientists to do the necessary research in their fields - the case is closed before the book is opened -

Light, no scientist on the planet claims to have all the answers, that is not what they do. To take evolution for example, we know that random mutation occurs, we know that natural selection will result in a form of observable evolution over a long period time, although we cannot create this in a lab for obvious reasons. What we don't know is the complete history of every species or ANY species on this planet, the information isn't there in any form that we can find (yet). I really don't understand why some theists are so against evolution science, I don't hear them preaching against geology or astronomy.
ID is not science, it is a claim that has no evidence to back it up other than religious faith. You don't see NASA consult astrologers or priests when they plan missions to distant planets and moons. Think about it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

There is not and will not be evidence for that. I doubt there is a "(c) God", anywhere to be found. I'm sure many 'theist scientists' have desperately searched for evidence and are searching for evidence and will continue to search for evidence, so the book is opened and will remain opened, but won't be filled with evidence. All they have is "look how detailed the eye is..." etc...

I think you have never read anything by an ID scientist - mostly their theories and hypothesis pertain to consciousness, or the idea that there is some other element beyond what is represented in quantum physics that solves the problems of its deterministic/non-deterministic axioms

 

[lightgigantic]

wsionynw

Light, no scientist on the planet claims to have all the answers, that is not what they do. To take evolution for example, we know that random mutation occurs,

micro evolutution - yes

we know that natural selection will result in a form of observable evolution over a long period time

some species may die - yes

, although we cannot create this in a lab for obvious reasons. What we don't know is the complete history of every species or ANY species on this planet, the information isn't there in any form that we can find (yet). I really don't understand why some theists are so against evolution science, I don't hear them preaching against geology or astronomy.

Basically the issue is the theories advocated by molecular evolutionists - that life evolved from matter

ID is not science, it is a claim that has no evidence to back it up other than religious faith.

Molecular evolutionists also have the apparent same absence of evidence (ie a complete reliance on faith) - in fact you can even trace out the histotical continuum of science over the past 150-200 years that lead to such a premise being institutionalised - that life evolved from matter (despite a complete lack of evidence)

You don't see NASA consult astrologers or priests when they plan missions to distant planets and moons. Think about it

It seems that you too are also not familiar with the propositions of ID - atthe very least I have not heard of NASA being pertitioned by representatives of ID to include priests and astrologers on their R & D teams

 

[wsionynw]

Molecular evolutionists also have the apparent same absence of evidence (ie a complete reliance on faith) - in fact you can even trace out the histotical continuum of science over the past 150-200 years that lead to such a premise being institutionalised - that life evolved from matter (despite a complete lack of evidence)

It's known that at present we cannot fully explain the origins of life, it's one of the reasons that space exploration is so important. No scientist, to my knowledge, has claimed to have the answer to the origin of life. We have good guesses based on what we do know, but no more. If you believe that a God created life from nothing, then fair enough, but you can't back that up with science.

It seems that you too are also not familiar with the propositions of ID - atthe very least I have not heard of NASA being pertitioned by representatives of ID to include priests and astrologers on their R & D teams

I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't claiming anything about ID reps pertitioning NASA. My point is that ID is not science, so it doesn't belong in science lessons. NASA scientists don't consult the Bible when they try to work out the age of distant stars, and biologists don't consult the Bible when they teach the origin of species.

 

[Enterprise-D]

That's the utilitarian argument for the existance of God. If one believes in God, one lives a moral life and is rewarded in heaven. If one does not believe in God, and lives sinfully, one risks eternal damnation if you are wrong. If you believe in God and he does not exist, you've lived a moral life for nothing. But is that such a bad thing?

Selective semantics.

And what if one doesn't believe in god, but is moral? I'm betting more than a few Christians had the knee-jerk reaction that one would still go to hell.

(Hey Lightee...the office was quite buzzing this week...I'll get to your lengthy talespins soon enough )

exactly...

just the IDEA.. of a GOD... serves to improve mankinds general behavior, and has lead to our modern world.

a world, based on huministic peaceful values.. which since the dawn of man... until this age.. was always taugh and instilled in people by religions...

some say morality has nothing to do with religion.

that maybe so... but religion has alot to do with morality.
the teaching of morality, its promotion, and defense.


even if there is no GOD, the belief in a GOD is beneficial for all humankind.

a world full of atheists... would be a world wide sodom and gommorah.

Why do you capitalize the word god? Are you afraid that a lightning bolt will reduce you to ashes?
Morality and religion are in the past, and as a matter of fact has had input in current moral definitions. History and what not, societal development, all fine and dandy.
But in modern times there is little to no causality relation. You can liken the development of morality to a child growing up. Religion would be the baby steps, the initial learning. Hundreds of years later, we don't need to be threatened with hellfires to behave! Heck, Star Trek or X-Men can do a better job of instilling values, because they do not depend on instilling fear. And they're just as fictional.

A world full of atheists might be a united people with one less factor to fuel discrimination. Your comparison is a common theist fear (of the unknown) tactic. YOU don't actually know what a world full of athiests would be like.

 

[S.A.M.]

YOU don't actually know what a world full of athiests would be like.

Neither do you.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Pardon me, I missed out a word:
"Morality and religion are related in the past,..."

 

[Enterprise-D]

Neither do you.

Correct, I never deigned to say I did know. I said "might be". What I was addressing is Mosheh's fear of the unknown.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

Well, it seems some of you will be fuel for satans bar-b-que.

have fun with that.

so many people like to tie GOD to religion.

religion is about GOD..

GOD, is not about religion.

every religion on earth could be completely wrong, and there could still very well be a GOD....

you can argue a million ways against GOD... and if your right.. you win nothing.
if your wrong... you win the fires of hell.

good luck.

-MT

 

[superluminal]

Well, it seems some of you will be fuel for satans bar-b-que.

have fun with that.

so many people like to tie GOD to religion.

religion is about GOD..

GOD, is not about religion.

every religion on earth could be completely wrong, and there could still very well be a GOD....

you can argue a million ways against GOD... and if your right.. you win nothing.
if your wrong... you win the fires of hell.

good luck.

-MT

Satan's having a BBQ? Awesome? What are we having? Flaming shishkabob of god? God steaks? Roast rack of god? Mmmmm... Yummy!

 

[Bells]

In otherwords an atheist doesn't perceive god as the supreme authority so they act under their own authority - just like a person who does not acknowledge that a person owns a house may tresspass, which would be a transgression of the house owners authority
In otherwords the atheist may have the vision they are doing nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean god has the same vision.

You fail to realise the fact that an atheist simply does not believe in god. We do not think god exists. We do not perceive god as being anything.. We do not perceive god at all.

You need to realise that many of us simply do not believe in any entity you seem to classify as "God". We act under our own authority because there is no other authority that demands we submit to it. A house or a piece of land is a tangible thing. God however is simply non-existent. If in our actions we feel we are doing nothing wrong, then we aren't in our minds. If another person (yes that's right, another living, breathing existing individual) differs and thinks we are doing something wrong, then a conflict or a confrontation, etc may arise.

 

[lightgigantic]

wsionynw

It's known that at present we cannot fully explain the origins of life, it's one of the reasons that space exploration is so important. No scientist, to my knowledge, has claimed to have the answer to the origin of life. We have good guesses based on what we do know, but no more. If you believe that a God created life from nothing, then fair enough, but you can't back that up with science.

Thats the point - they don't know the origins of life yet they insist that life came from matter



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
It seems that you too are also not familiar with the propositions of ID - atthe very least I have not heard of NASA being pertitioned by representatives of ID to include priests and astrologers on their R & D teams ”

I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't claiming anything about ID reps pertitioning NASA. My point is that ID is not science, so it doesn't belong in science lessons. NASA scientists don't consult the Bible when they try to work out the age of distant stars, and biologists don't consult the Bible when they teach the origin of species.

On the contrary ID is a science - I think you may be thinking that an ID scientist is like a cross between a bible thumper and some guy with a PHD - ID scientists work on a different paradigm - namely that life came from life - inother words even though they have just the same amount of evidence as a molecular evolutionist, they work with theories of consciousness as a basis for entering into experimental observations - the difficulty they face is that science does not acknowledge consciousness - most ID scientists are physicists (ie they are trying to work around the problems of quantum physics as opposed to biologists)

 

[lightgigantic]

Bells

You fail to realise the fact that an atheist simply does not believe in god. We do not think god exists. We do not perceive god as being anything.. We do not perceive god at all.

as more than one judge has said "Ignorance is no excuse" - in other words even if you don't think there are laws that dtermine the right and wrong side of the road to drive on, you are still liable to get a ticket if you mess up

You need to realise that many of us simply do not believe in any entity you seem to classify as "God". We act under our own authority because there is no other authority that demands we submit to it. A house or a piece of land is a tangible thing. God however is simply non-existent.

Just as god is not apparent to the atheist, the owner of the house may not be apparent to the tresspasser -

If in our actions we feel we are doing nothing wrong, then we aren't in our minds.

I don't see how since all you have to do to comply to this standard is have "If it feels good it must be good" - still won't stop the narcotic squad kicking down your door

If another person (yes that's right, another living, breathing existing individual) differs and thinks we are doing something wrong, then a conflict or a confrontation, etc may arise.

I agree with you - until you have an understanding that god exists it wouldn't make much sense to follow his instructions, particularly if you felt it was in your inteersts to do otherwise - however my question is this - if god does exist, do you think your disobedience in ignorance would qualify for a complete redemption?

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

Satan's having a BBQ? Awesome? What are we having? Flaming shishkabob of god? God steaks? Roast rack of god? Mmmmm... Yummy!

SUPERLUMINAL STEAKS.

-MT