Why do you disbelieve?

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by moonman

Anyone,,, Whatsupyall give it a try, tell me why I need to believe blindly and unqestioningly the EXACT same thing as you believe.
I want an arguement(not 'BECAUSE OF THE FACTS KID!'), obviously your supreme Christian intelect isn't quite clear to us stupid brainwashed non-Chirsitians. Maybe you should explain it in our terms. I'm just not getting it.

Every individual are born to love, born to have faith, born to trust, born to worship....But who or what do you love? Who do you worship? What does it accomplish? Self-gratification? Or is it for the good of the human race??
We are designed to all live abundantly, without worrying what clothes to wear, or what food to eat, "Look at the birds of the air, they neither toil nor spin, yet your heavenly father feeds them...How much more worth are you..."- Jesus Christ....
If theres anything we should worry about, then that would be "How can I serve God today?" in other words "How can I serve my fellow brothers and sisters today?"...."For the one to be the greatest among you must be servant of all"..-Jesus Christ........
But instead, our society is jacked up...We worry about what clothes to wear, where to live, what carrier, how big the house should be, where to get a wife, etc....Not that this things are wrong, but we should just live through it without so much worries...WHERE YOUR HEART IS, IS WHERE YOUR TREASURE IS ALSO......WHEN YOU WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT MATERIALS, OR WHAT TO EAT, AND WHERE TO LIVE, ETC..IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE THE CENTER OF YOUR OWN LIFE AND ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT SERVING YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS..."Whoever is the friend of the world is the enemy of God.."-Jesus...



In summary. WE need Jesus Christ WORDS to guide us in life...We need to be virtous, empty, generous...You might say "What good is it doing these things when the world is all full of greed and hate anyways?"....We are not called to be successfull, but we are called to be faithfull..-Mother Theresa..

JUST TRY YOUR BEST TO BE GOOD AT THE POSISITION GOD PLACED YOU...YOU MAY FEEL YOUR MISSION ISNT VERY EFFECTIVE IN THIS WORLD WHERE PRIDE AND POWER RULES, BUT A TIME WILL COME WHEN YOUR DEEDS WILL BE APPRECIATED........

 

[Empty Dragon]

Whatupyall

Every individual are born to love, born to have faith, born to trust, born to worship....But who or what do you love? Who do you worship? What does it accomplish? Self-gratification? Or is it for the good of the human race??

For some one who does not beleive in a higher power. It is really up to them whether the worship, love or follow selfish ends. Just as man who believes in god can lose faith and turn away. So even if God is truth what is the difference. Even if god exists you can turn away. That is the gift of free will. You can chose to be selfish, to accomplish something....Though I do not think love is a choice. Your mind can chose how you act but not how you feel.

We are designed to all live abundantly, without worrying what clothes to wear, or what food to eat

I would agree with you such material gains are frivolous and pointless in the end. Strife seperates us from our true nature. To relentlessly search for such temporary joys and statisfactions is pointless. In the end they will only cause you more pain and grief. To suffer is without point. To be self obsessed is to suffer.

You might say "What good is it doing these things when the world is all full of greed and hate anyways?"....We are not called to be successfull, but we are called to be faithfull..-Mother Theresa..

Giving up will only bring more greed and hate to this world. Giving up on life and yourself is what breeds haterd. All strife is born from our own mind. I understand the heart of the quote so I will not argue symantics.

In the end be innocent, gentle, and heartfelt. To anger is the path of greed and intollerence. Even when some one is telling you that your god doesn't exist while he is filled with hatred, return it with love. Do not let yourslef be drawn into such a way, for it will consume you. Just because one believes in God does not mean he has the wisdom of god. Foolishness is not bound to faith or creed. It transends all boarders. Humility is a virute, because in the end we do not know. If we preceive god to exist or not is irrelivant. it may be truth or it may not. Why then poison your heart over something so trivial as an opinion.

You cannot fight for faith for then all that matters is lost. Whether there be proof of a god or not follow your heart and do not let your self be dominated by egotism.

Perhaps Jesus is the only way. Perhaps in the end that is the truth. But to act as if you know is egotism and it will lead you in to strife.

What would Jesus do? Would he ever force anything on anyone? Would he belittle some one for not having faith? Would he call him an idiot? To my understanding he would act upon them with nothing but gentleness, humility, and love.

So why get angry?

 

[Voodoo Child]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
No humans is pure evil either, as no humans are pure good...If you make a comment with "God is so evil because he made evil man and blaimed them for their evil deeds", then I can also say "God is so good because he made good man and rewarded them for their good deeds"...

You can say that, but the bible doesn't really. Even a good person is hellbound unless he gets the help of Jeez. Is there a single person that can get into the good place on his own merits?

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU AND I ARE CYBORGS, LIKE ROBOTS WITH NO FREEWILL...YOUR DELUSIONAL, I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I KNOW I AM INDEPENDENT AND HAVE FREEWILL, AND CAN MAKE DECISIONS FOR MYSELF...IF YOU ARE A ROBOT, WITH NO FREEWILL, THATS JUST YOU, NOT ME, SO DONT CALL THEISTS DELUSIONAL EVER AGAIN, EVER.....EVER.......EVER...........

Can you prove you have freewill? Can you discount the possibility of a deterministic universe?

you are trying to tel me that God should interfere with your decisions and not give you the chance to make decisions for yourself

No, I'm trying to tell you that he has already made the decisions.

Re: soular energy

If the soul is a form of energy that moves faster than light, how could you possibly verify this? There is no known way of detecting such forces. It is not unexpected for souls to be unverifiable, but is there any evidence to favour this particular soul theory? The general consenus among believers is that souls are non-material in nature.

 

[Thor]

I'm skipping all of Whatsupyall's hilarious posts and getting straight to the point

I have always believed that god was a concept created by the minds of mere men. Nothing more and nothing less.

And the fact that a god could exsist is obsurd in my opinion

I am not as gullible as many people in this bleak world

 

[James R]

spuriousmonkey:

<i>i did a bit of research in the history of science...and one thing I learned is that the truth is totally dependent on cultural context. The truth is therefore is changeable and not fixed. </i>

That's the standard postmodernist line.

Do you really believe that the truth of mathematical statements such as 1 + 1 = 2 depend in any way on cultural context? If so, how?

 

[Nebuchadnezzaar]

James R that's a little too simle isn't it? can't you answer your own question using your own common sense? Don't you understand what "whatsupyall" was trying to say?

why attack words and not arguments?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by James R
spuriousmonkey:

<i>i did a bit of research in the history of science...and one thing I learned is that the truth is totally dependent on cultural context. The truth is therefore is changeable and not fixed. </i>

That's the standard postmodernist line.

Do you really believe that the truth of mathematical statements such as 1 + 1 = 2 depend in any way on cultural context? If so, how?

shit...i hate post modernism...I would really hate it if they actually said something that made sense.


1+1=2

it's math...we have a rule that says 1+1=2, hence 1+1=2...tomorrow could be different (especially if the religious fanatics manage to take over the world. Then 1+1 could be 2 in most cases, unless it says in the bible that it is 3. Rules are changeable)

The statement 1+1=2 could only be said to say something meaningful about the truth, if one states that the truth has to lie within certain rule set we have postulated earlier. This could be a definition of science. And although I would agree that this particular truth can come close to the 'ultimate' truth, it will probably never be the 'ultimate' truth.

why can we never attain the ultimate truth? For one thing we are only humans. Although the potential of our brain goes a far way, I don't think that the limitations of the human brain will allow us to approach this ultimate truth totally. We might devise an artificial intelligence that can grasp the truth. But will we ever understand this AI then?

to sum up:
do i believe science is based on truth. yes.
do i think we will ever get THE Ulitmate truth? no (limitations of our brains)
do i believe that religion is based on truth? no.


edit:
read this later:
****Truth can be conditional but it is not mutable. The confusion occurs, primarily, because of conditions that are believed to be universal but are not. For example: Newtonian physics is true but the conditions upon which it is dependant were not revealed until Einstein.

Those things that were believed to be true and later proven false were false all along.

~Raithere***

Well said...I would just like to comment that this assumes that the scientific values remain similar to what they are now. Science is part of society and societies change over time. I certainly hope that our society will never change so radically that it will have no place anymore for an objective science. But you never know what happens in the future. Science and religion might be combined again like it was before the renaissance (and semi-combined a long time after).

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Nebuchadnezzaar
i think you've nailed it, good choice of words.
but then why do you live? (this is my dilemma i'm interested in your response)

i live because I was born and didn't die yet (this is not a joke, it is just that simple)

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey

do i believe science is based on truth. yes.

Science is based on contingent truth.

The proposition that { 1 + 1 = 2 } is a necessary truth.

It helps not to confuse the two.

 

[notPresidentAndrew]

Originally posted by New Life
Do you think christianity is fake because you've found something that actually doesnt make sense to you or are you just afraid of something? (commitment, intimate relationships, etc)?? cause most of the people trying to prove christians wrong sound like they just dont want to believe it!

One of my friends seriously wants God to exist but is an atheist because he does not see any evidence of him. He is convinced that we are a just another "random possibility."

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
Then 1+1 could be 2 in most cases, unless it says in the bible that it is 3. Rules are changeable)

If 1+1<>2 then it wouldn’t be mathematics, at least, not standard Cartesian mathematics. The fact is; mathematics, science, linguistics, logic… indeed the whole of human thought and perception are relativistic models of a presumed reality. They are simply models that exist in our minds and are more or less accurate isomorphisms of what it is that exists beyond our selves. The challenge is to invent and perfect these isomorphisms so that they are as congruent as possible with what really is “out there”.

The statement 1+1=2 could only be said to say something meaningful about the truth, if one states that the truth has to lie within certain rule set we have postulated earlier.

The reason why mathematics is so incredibly useful is that it’s symbology has no inherent assignment of values. We may assign 1 to equal anything we like and run from there.

This could be a definition of science. And although I would agree that this particular truth can come close to the 'ultimate' truth, it will probably never be the 'ultimate' truth.

Assuming, of course, there is actually an “ultimate truth”.

why can we never attain the ultimate truth?

Actually, it’s a limitation of any formal system. Gödel proved this.

do i believe that religion is based on truth? no.

If you examine religion you can find truths… what I find is that religion is an examination of ourselves, of the human condition. Like any fiction novel, it says more about us and the writer(s) than about “reality”.

We have a wonderful example right here with whatsup. If you examine what he says and how he says it the scope and importance of his belief system becomes quite apparent. His desperate clinging to his “truths” and the scorn and anger apparent in his denial of any refutation show how terribly important these beliefs are to his self-image and world view.

While I get frustrated and angry with him at times I also feel a great amount of pity for him… how fragile and frightened he is.

Well said...I would just like to comment that this assumes that the scientific values remain similar to what they are now.

Technically, science does not assign value… it simply observes and attempts to explain. While the individuals definitely influence the system with their own values and agendas the great strength of science is that it corrects itself over the long term.

Science is part of society and societies change over time. I certainly hope that our society will never change so radically that it will have no place anymore for an objective science. But you never know what happens in the future. Science and religion might be combined again like it was before the renaissance (and semi-combined a long time after).

Like mathematics, above, it would simply no longer be science.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Science is based on contingent truth.

The proposition that { 1 + 1 = 2 } is a necessary truth.

It helps not to confuse the two.

All human comprehension of truth is contingent. {1+1=2} is only necessary within the formal system of standard mathematics. There are models where this does not hold true or is not the only possible result. The assumption that an ultimate, independent reality exists is just that, an assumption. The only thing we can approach assurance on is relational accuracy.

~Raithere

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Raithere
{1+1=2} is only necessary within the formal system of standard mathematics.

OK

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Raithere
The only thing we can approach assurance on is relational accuracy.

Respectfully:

• What does that sentence mean?
• Why is that sentence useful?

Neither are apparent to me.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

Originally posted by Raithere
The only thing we can approach assurance on is relational accuracy.

Respectfully:

• What does that sentence mean?
• Why is that sentence useful?

Neither are apparent to me.

No problem I didn’t mean to be obscure.

To be more explicit; the only thing we can really be sure of is how accurately our models represent the relationships between various observed phenomena. For instance; although physics has definitely undermined the orbital model of the electron as “real”, the accuracy of the orbital model in the realm of chemistry is very precise… so much so that it is still used.

Another good example is Mitchel and Laplace’s hypotheses of what we now term a black-hole. They both were able to predict the possibility of such objects despite that fact that they were laboring under the incomplete model of Newtonian gravity and the conception of light as a particle. Again, although the models they were using are now understood to be incomplete (because there are phenomena that they do not adequately explain) they were accurate enough to predict black-holes in the 1780s.

~Raithere

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Raithere

Respectfully:

• What does that sentence mean?
• Why is that sentence useful?

Neither are apparent to me.

No problem I didn’t mean to be obscure.

Thanks - it is far more likely that I was being obtuse.

Originally posted by Raithere
... the only thing we can really be sure of is how accurately our models represent the relationships between various observed phenomena.

I would think that we could also really be sure of analytic statements such as

• circles are round
• 2 > 1
• P <> NOT(P)

since, at least on this side of the Looking Glass, the veracity of each is a function of definition and, therefore, necessary and independent of experience save for that required to understand of the terms involved. No?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt


I would think that we could also really be sure of analytic statements such as

• circles are round
• 2 > 1
• P <> NOT(P)

since, at least on this side of the Looking Glass, the veracity of each is a function of definition and, therefore, necessary and independent of experience save for that required to understand of the terms involved. No?

hmm.. I think we can only be sure those kinds of things socially. In other words, if you've studied it and I've studied it independently, we'll likely understand each other and agree that we've effectively communicated. I think subjectively however, you can NEVER be SURE of anything for there is always the possibility that the rules will change without notice. I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

maybe we should ensure that our children are educated as such eh?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I think subjectively however, you can NEVER be SURE of anything for there is always the possibility that the rules will change without notice. I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Not really.

I suspect it's possible that someday

• "2" might come to designate "in an environment dominated by hard-shelled seeds",
• ">" might come to designate "the beak of the finch", and
• "1" might come to designate "will get bigger and stronger"

in which case

• "2 > 1"

would signify something entirely different, but probably not ...

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I would think that we could also really be sure of analytic statements such as

• circles are round
• 2 > 1
• P <> NOT(P)

since, at least on this side of the Looking Glass, the veracity of each is a function of definition and, therefore, necessary and independent of experience save for that required to understand of the terms involved. No?

Within its formal system, yes, I agree. We can, however, use these concepts in different systems and change the result. For instance; if we define a circle as a shape where all points are equidistant from a center point the result is different if we map this in 2 dimensions or in 3. But you have the key... the definition is crucial. What often happens; however, is that we have some rather broad assumptions hidden in our definitions. The genius of Einstein, for instance, was to grab a hold of one of our most basic assumptions and twist it around on us. He realized that it made more sense if space and time were malleable and light was the constant.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Raithere

Technically, science does not assign value… it simply observes and attempts to explain. While the individuals definitely influence the system with their own values and agendas the great strength of science is that it corrects itself over the long term.

Like mathematics, above, it would simply no longer be science.

~Raithere

You have a very strict definition of science. However the definition of science is changable (has changed and will probably change). You might think that your definition of science is the right one, but people in the past disagreed and people in the future might disagree.

it therefore is a meaningless statement that certain science is not science, because it doesn't fulfil your requirements. Newton would not have been a scientist within your scientific definition. You might accept part of his work, but reject most. All his alchemy for instance. But it was essential to him and his scientific work. He tought he was doing science. But it isn't science according to our standards. The same will be valid for modern science. Ideas about science WILL change over time. It would be almost arrogant to think that it wouldn't.

the 'progressive corrective' science perspective is probably very common, but it certainly results in a very boring history of science. You end up with encycopledic massive volumes of selective history. You delete the essence of science. Science is done by people, with a cultural backgroup, living in a specific society, working in a specific scientific community, with specific ideas about the nature of science.