The four horseman of the apocalypse, now

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's very counter productive for the religion itself since in that domain its claims can easily be dismissed by simple scientific observation.

On the other hand a belief in God can help better explain the miracles of science and nature. It must be lonely being a godless heathen.

[Longinius 1]

If there is a god, which there might or might not be, I am a firm believer that he helps those that help themselves. He simply doesnt help people because its necessery. Just look at the state of the world for proof.

[Oligo 1]

On the other hand a belief in God can help better explain the miracles of science and nature. It must be lonely being a godless heathen.

You know, religious people often assume that since they would be lonely without their god, godless heathens are lonely without a god. But that is simply not true. As a godless heathen I can say that I find the absence of god to be a very liberating thing: I would not like to be a helpless puppet torn between the conflict of two supernatural beings fighting for supremacy (god and satan). Instead I prefer to make my own destiny and one day watch my final sunset.

[FallenPaladin 0]

That`s why there`s the small printed in the Bible believer contract:

God walks in mysterious ways. His plan is never obvious. Man is not able to understand God. etc. etc.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Yup, definitely some type A Marxists in here. People are not bees.

[Wasrad 0]

I am God.

I am Satan.

I am Adam.

I am Eve.

[Balschoiw 0]

Religion and forum don´t mix well imo.

I stayed out of that because I don´t believe in god anymore. I did when I was younger but once you´ve seen all that starving people and cruelty on the world with wake eyes you start to think.

There is as much god on this planet as there is justice.

Believe and faith in major powers like god can help you if you believe in it (same with placebos you get in hospital for sleeping) but nowadays religion is that much abused and used for very unreligiouse goals. Money , power , domination. Whatever you want to achieve, place a "god" in a phrase and you can be sure all that sheeps will be running in line.

So:

God bless nothing but the stupidity of humans !

[Wasrad 0]

God IS the stupidity of mankind.

It is mans way of not facing reality and looking for an alternate means of support and survival that requires no true effort but getting on your knees and asking instead of taking.

Most importantly, it is Man not realizing that Man can be God or Satan. We have already made it to where we can be Adam or Eve, it wont be long until we realize that there is a God, there is a Satan and both have lived withen us sine our beginings. They are not true individuals but humanities core exsistance.

or something like that.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Most importantly, it is Man not realizing that Man can be God or Satan.

God and satan are both definition done by humans for humans.

And every human is both, devil and god.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Ready for a shocker?

I completely agree with Balschoiw.

[theavonlady 2]

I am Adam.

I am Eve.

So, you've been to one of those Swedish doctors, discussed a page or so ago?

[USSoldier11B 0]

I am Adam.

I am Eve.

So, you've been to one of those Swedish doctors, discussed a page or so ago?    

What he means to say is that he is Michael Jackson.

[theavonlady 2]

I am Adam.

I am Eve.

So, you've been to one of those Swedish doctors, discussed a page or so ago?    

What he means to say is that he is Michael Jackson.

Another prophecy come true!

Quote[/b] ]

(Rev 6:2) And I saw, and behold, a white horse

(Rev 6:6) And I saw, and behold, a black horse

[USSoldier11B 0]

LOL!

I can't remember where I read it, but someone here in the U.S. dug a hole in their backyard and covered it with planks to make a bunker for the Y2K disaster. It even had a photo and it was hilarious. My parents sorta got caught up in the craze and bought a bunch of canned food and a kerosene generator. What a bunch of weirdos.

I on the other hand, went out and got plastered.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX-

Quote[/b] ]Having a deep sense of wonder at the unexplained and at the vastness of the universe is not synonymous with spitituality.  What cold hard explanation are you talking about?  We don't know all the facts yet, we are still finding out things about the universe etc.  The people who think we have all the 'facts' are the spiritualists.  We don't.  

Many pantheists may disagree, and in fact so do i to some extent. Maybe they are not 'synonymous' but at least linked.

Science is cleansed as much as possible of emotion. Scientists are of course emotional but their discoveries are not explained emotionally but rather logically and technically. Hence the word 'cold' (emotive as it is). This might seem like an obvious and stupid point but i think it's essential to the perceived successes and failures of science.

Science is in many ways a masculine undertaking. It is also futile. Individual scientists may seek to understand specific phenomena and may reach a satisfactory conclusion but science as a whole not only does not but as far as i can possibly envision will never be able to explain everything. It is not possible. Science is descriptive but does it provide a meaning?

People tend to need to find meaning and they also have a need to understand things emotionally as well as logically in a way not covered by science. Of course there is a scientific explaination for emotion but that makes it no less essential a component of who we are. When one undertakes the task of attempting to understand life the universe and everything from an emotional perspective i would say that the task takes on a spiritual aspect. Do you disagree?

--------------

Denoirs statistical comparison may be valid when considering the possibility of an all powerful creator watching over the faithful but it is less valid when considering if strong faith or spiritual belief may have some medium-long term physiological effect (as i have been suggesting it may). For a start, statistically speaking i am a confirmed Christian just like those Polish people, yet i do not believe in God. How many of the Polish really have strong beliefs (as opposed to going through the motions) ? People may lie about their beliefs, how does one measure strength of belief? I dont think a reliable scientific test has yet been devised. Perhaps brain scans, i believe the strongly religious have more activity in certain parts of their brains...

Anyway CapsLock guy what about the "name of the beast was 666" part? How could you miss that out, and the marks on the hand or forehead without which noone would be able to buy or sell. (gotta love revelations ) Some designer/inventors are already considering it. Think barcodes on the body or microchips in the flesh...

Luckily none of these ideas have gone commercial yet so it looks like we have a few years left...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Read a Richard Dawkins book. You'll be very surprised. You have an utter misconception of science.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]Read a Richard Dawkins book. You'll be very surprised. You have an utter misconception of science.

You mean e.g. 'The Selfish Gene' a copy of which happens to be lying at the side of my computer as i type?

Science- (merriam-webster dictionary)

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

Not a perfect definition but it will do for here, and none of it comes as news to me. Yes where philosophical implications are considered and thought out in relation to science a potentially 'spiritual' element in thinking may arise however this is not an intrinsic part of the scientific method but an extension and diversion from it. Might i suggest that you have a misconception of spirituality.

I dont really think we have much to disagree on here. The religious always seem to get pounded down by the atheists here in these debates (especially when Denoir was still a mod ) and i sometimes like to argue the case for the losing side in these forums so ive probably done a bit of that here. You accept that science doesnt have all the answers and im pretty damn sure it never will. Science is an indispensible tool and a essential way of examining things, sometimes i think some people just get a little carried away (and blinded) by it.

Peace

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I accept that science doesn't have all the answers, yet I do think it is possible to eventually have all the answers.

Religion, on the other hand, has zero answers, merely more questions.

Name an answer religion has that doesn't make more questions than it solves.

Did you actually read the selfish gene or does it just look good sitting there? Did you notice the passion and feelings Dawkins has which are stimulated by science?

[denoir 0]

Here is an interesting article by James Randi, the scepticism guru:

Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

ooo! Thanks denoir. I am a bright.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]"I accept that science doesn't have all the answers, yet I do think it is possible to eventually have all the answers."

Possible in what context (or in what sense)? Do you think that science in the future may arrive at a complete understanding of all things percieved everywhere?

Absolute knowledge of percieved things? How do you propose this might feasibly be acheived, and how likely do you think it is that this human race will actually achieve such a feat in its existence?

You may say its possible but how can you possibly calculate this? Is it reasonable scientifically to assume that science will eventually afford people all the answers to all their questions?

Of course you may say that in the future it is possible that people may invent new technologies and make scientific discoveries that make it possible to gain a complete understanding of all observed things, possible to answer all questions, but this would be an untestable belief... is it reasonable? You may believe it is possible as others may believe science could one day discover immortal souls. In fact it seems more likely that science will one day discover immortal souls than that it will one day be able to answer all questions with flawless accuracy dont you think? Yet there is insufficient basis for assuming either will happen.

Quote[/b] ]"Name an answer religion has that doesn't make more questions than it solves."

God is god is god. Who is god?

Define religion. The job of science is to logically answer questions that arise in peoples minds via observable facts(more or less). Is that the job of religion or are you just looking at religion with scientific eyes?

What of feeling? People feel religion they dont just logically conclude that religion makes sense. One can scientifically explain and thus logically categorise and dismiss emotion and feeling but is it right do so? Is emotion simply an added extra to the human experience, an indicator of our primitive past? Perhaps. But it has also been an essential part of what makes us human. Who is to say emotion should not be afforded a central role in our perception and understanding of the universe? Human existence itself is afterall ineffable (in my opinion and according to my reading of life thus far) and a sense of ineffability is first percieved emotionally (if it was logically comprehensible then it would not be ineffable)

How do you measure intuition? Science cannot now measure an emotional connection to god -in itself- (or god of course) so it does not recognise such a thing,  but it might feel and seem as real as their right hand to the religious person. Who is to say they are wrong? Most religious people are not clinically insane. Perhaps a small amount of insanity is not so bad anyway. Who judges what is sane? Are morals sane where they interfere with logic?

Religion is not a particular hypothesis but a massive and ever changing number of hypotheses (from a scientific viewpoint). Noone can be certain that science will not one day support a religious hypothesis such as the existence of a god (however unlikely) . Science cannot outlaw religion as a whole. Religion wont go away, we're stuck with it for a long time yet. hahahah

Science necessarily seeks to destroy everything that is not scientific and it becomes a closed system if you think it possible for it to answer all questions. I would like to question the exact history of all matter in the universe and the exact history of all other universes (unless they are proven not to exist). Do you think human scientists can answer this question correctly within the lifetime of the universe? Maybe you do (id be interested to hear how).

Readable Randi article and i agree with much of it. Im still calling myself a spiritual atheist. Play the bongo drums in a cave and it starts to make sense.

Anyway, Fighting against science is like fighting against the sea. Fun for a while, then i need to go to the toilet.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ] Do you think that science in the future may arrive at a complete understanding of all things percieved everywhere?

Yes. Unimaginably far in the future. Like after the big crunch far.

Quote[/b] ]You may say its possible but how can you possibly calculate this? Is it reasonable scientifically to assume that science will eventually afford people all the answers to all their questions?

Are new questions answered every single day? Do we find out more about life, the universe and everything every single day? Yes. Is this trend consistent over time? Yes. Therefore as long as this trend continues, we shall eventually, in a very long time, find out everything, assuming that there is a finite limit of things to discover (be they finite numbers of infinite universes)

Quote[/b] ]Yet there is insufficient basis for assuming either will happen.

I'm not assuming it will happen; I assume it won't. I merely think it possible that it might happen. Not probable.

Quote[/b] ]"Name an answer religion has that doesn't make more questions than it solves."

Awaiting an answer. If you think god is god is an answer that doesn't raise more questions = wrong.

Quote[/b] ]But it has also been an essential part of what makes us human. Who is to say emotion should not be afforded a central role in our perception and understanding of the universe

Maybe the fact that raw emotion is a very poor indicator of truth and judgement? Because it doesn't work? Because it skews people's views?

Emotion is nothing more than a hindrance when trying to establish facts. If you start letting your emotions guide you then truth goes straight out the window.

I'm fairly sure Dr Dawkins mentions this in his book(s), are you sure you have read it?

Quote[/b] ] but it might feel and seem as real as their right hand to the religious person. Who is to say they are wrong?

Me. The facts. Etc.

A bunch of people holding delusional beliefs does not evidence make. Go check out a mental hospital, you'll find people who are absolutely convinced of various things which simply are not true. Their convictions are as strong or stronger than religious delusions. Yet they are wrong with absolutely no difference in your method of determining 'facts'? (how real something feels to someone)

Does this make sense?

Quote[/b] ]Religion is not a particular hypothesis but a massive and ever changing number of hypotheses (from a scientific viewpoint).

Cobblers. This is utter, utter, nonsense.

Religion is nothing approaching a hypothesis. Please consult the meaning of 'hypothesis' in the scientific terminology.

Quote[/b] ]Noone can be certain that science will not one day support a religious hypothesis such as the existence of a god (however unlikely)

True in general, however specific gods (Yahweh, Allah, etc) can be disproven by having mutually impossible attributes. You cannot have a square circle, and you cannot have an all powerful, all merciful god who tortures people for eternity. It just doesn't work.

Quote[/b] ]

Science necessarily seeks to destroy everything that is not scientific and it becomes a closed system if you think it possible for it to answer all questions.

Quote[/b] ]

I would like to question the exact history of all matter in the universe and the exact history of all other universes (unless they are proven not to exist). Do you think human scientists can answer this question correctly within the lifetime of the universe? Maybe you do (id be interested to hear how).

I think you have a slight misconception of science still. You seem to think that all answers to everything should be available right now. In truth some questions are honestly answered with 'we don't know... yet.' -far more honestly than, say, religion, when the answer is *make up the first thing that comes to mind*

As I've said before, even if scientists cannot answer a specific question, they are infinitely more valuable than theologians, who cannot answer *any* questions.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes.  Unimaginably far in the future.  Like after the big crunch far.

Yes i see. And are all these questions answered by science after the big crunch more useful than theologians could be to bringing interesting philosophical thoughts and a sense of calm and happiness to peoples lives until the end of human belief in theology (or the end of humans)?

Even blindly assuming the trend you mention remains consistent over the astonishing amount of time and technical hurdles it would take to complete, how useful is the possibility of science providing these answers ,sometime in the (likely) far future, to me in a religion bashing way today?

Quote[/b] ]Maybe the fact that raw emotion is a very poor indicator of truth and judgement?  Because it doesn't work?  Because it skews people's views?

Emotion is nothing more than a hindrance when trying to establish facts.  If you start letting your emotions guide you then truth goes straight out the window.

I accept that i took an extreme position here. To put it differently do you believe that emotion lends nothing to human understanding? If feelings are unimportant in understanding then the quest for truth is indeed 'cold' as i first hinted. Is objective truth then only thing of importance, the only thing worth pursuing? Many people who are aware of the nature of science do not appear to think so.

Quote[/b] ]Cobblers.  This is utter, utter, nonsense.

Religion is nothing approaching a hypothesis.  Please consult the meaning of 'hypothesis' in the scientific terminology

Depends.It may be seen as a series of hypotheses (and an overarching hypothesis) 'unimaginably far in the future.  Like after the big crunch far' .

'Religion' indicates all and sundry religious belief in the world. You have said that science may answer all questions(at a certain point in time). Converting each belief into the form of a question does this not possibly provide in each religious belief a testable hypothesis (at a certain point in time)? It is not one hypothesis but presents a series of patently false statements (not scientifically supportable) and many testable hypotheses (assuming all answers may be known at some point by science).

Quote[/b] ]Awaiting an answer.  If you think god is god is an answer that doesn't raise more questions = wrong.

nope ,just paraphrasing religious nuts in general (ineffability and all that).

Is there any answer (excluding in post-crunch years) that doesnt raise more questions than it answers when studied by a determined and awkward questioner? If science answered questions without raising more then the various areas of scientific study would have ground to a halt no? There will be two questions for every answer for longer than i care to stay alive.

Quote[/b] ]As I've said before, even if scientists cannot answer a specific question, they are infinitely more valuable than theologians, who cannot answer *any* questions

I must disagree again (what fun!). I asked you to define religion. The philosophical aspects of many religions have served to answer certain types of questions in ways that seem reasonable and prove valuable to many people in a practical way in their everyday lives. How broadly might religion be defined? What aspects of philosophy fall inside the realm of spiritual belief blah bla

Just for fun we could discuss the complicated interactions in science between 'observer' and 'observed' which i scarcely comprehend (reminds me of the fact that for most proles many modern scientific theories are as untestable as any religion and so it becomes another act of faith to believe)

Many people prefer to believe in a mind-matter duality and i think that is their right. Its their brain , they perceive the sensation of their consciousness and noone else. Is it possible to reasonably generalise the sensations of consciousness ?Surely each person should make their own judgements. It is not scientifically absolutely provable that the external even exists. Everyones senses must in fact be suspect.

So why must people be confined to believing what is immediatly testable by experiment or observation and seemingly logical (because science says so! the alternative is unthinkable!) and who is to judge the probabilities of a more or less likely explanation for an observed phenomena (eg the universe) when talking in the often rather abstract and difficult to observe terms covered by religion?

So crazy people see things? Have you actually checked behind the light sockets for the ghost people? Perhaps they are really there. Can you say with certainty that noone is really hearing the voice of god?

It is possible to believe something that is not testable at the time and that according to logic based on current limited knowledge may seem illogical and yet be proved right with time. Some leaps of faith are rewarded.

In 'spiritual' matters and broad currently non disprovable philosophies ('there is god') it is inevitably a subjective judgement as to what seems logical and reasonable. Hey, i

know religion is largely (or totally) unnecessary but God just wont listen.

No i dont think it likely that the crazies are really on to something but nor do i think that answers to questions in a billion + years are especially helpful to anyone alive. If believing in Pixies helps people through life then so be it. It makes the world even more interesting and i really couldnt care. Attempts at understanding are futile for us in the end.

As for conflict, im gloomily sure that removing religion will just give people more mental space to fight over everything else. Yes at heart im basically a selfish pessimist who believes the world is screwed beyond understanding but if religion helps people find a sense of calm in life and provides a focus for self reflection (as it does for many) then good on religion i say. Could much of this be done by a secular practice? No doubt but so what. Unless you can come up with a conscionable way of eliminating billions of believers within my lifetime im not really that interested.

Dont worry. Be happy

For countless people religion has served a purpose and many continue to find use in religious doctrines. Buddhists are happier. Scientific fact  

Well thats all for now. Ive just spent far too long trying (in vain?) to explain what amount to drunken ramblings (my previous post) that i only half believe in at the best/worst of times posted in what is really a rather pointless discussion.    

indecently long

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes i see. And are all these questions answered by science after the big crunch more useful than theologians could be to bringing interesting philosophical thoughts and a sense of calm and happiness to peoples lives until the end of human belief in theology (or the end of humans)?

yes. Infinitely so.

Quote[/b] ]

Even blindly assuming the trend you mention remains consistent over the astonishing amount of time and technical hurdles it would take to complete, how useful is the possibility of science providing these answers ,sometime in the (likely) far future, to me in a religion bashing way today?

Well, because its the only way these questions are going to get answered. Religion does not answer questions.

Quote[/b] ][i accept that i took an extreme position here. To put it differently do you believe that emotion lends nothing to human understanding?

Emotion defines us as humans and allows us to act with compassion. It is no use whatsoever at determining facts. In short, it is useful for determining actions as long as it is not the sole motivator- the typical 'knee jerk reaction' after events are fuelled purely by emotion, not considered reasoning.

Again, this is covered in a much more eloquent fashion in one of the Dawkins books, I can't remember which one.

Your emotions can help guide your actions, but you must never let them interfere with your observations.

Quote[/b] ]Is objective truth then only thing of importance, the only thing worth pursuing?

Name another type of truth. Go on. There is only one truth. Things are either true or they aren't. If two witnesses both think they are right but describe the events differently, one is wrong (or both.)

Quote[/b] ]Many people who are aware of the nature of science do not appear to think so

Umm. Like who? I'm going to go ahead and call you wrong again here.

Quote[/b] ]Depends.It may be seen as a series of hypotheses (and an overarching hypothesis) 'unimaginably far in the future. Like after the big crunch far' .

No. Look it up. Religions are not worthy of the description 'hypothesis' and never will be unless they are changed so much as to no longer be religions.

Quote[/b] ]Converting each belief into the form of a question does this not possibly provide in each religious belief a testable hypothesis (at a certain point in time)?

No, because:

1) most beliefs are not in the form of a question and cannot be converted to such

2) even if a religious belief were 'correct,' that doesn't validate it. In other words, it is possible to start with two invalid premises but still get a correct answer. For example:

(premise1) Bottlenose Dolphins are fish (wrong)

(premise2) All fish live in the sea (wrong)

(conclusion) Therefore Bottlenose Dolphins live in the sea. (correct)

In order to check that this problem isn't occuring, you need to have verifiable and testable evidence. Religion does not have these, it merely has unsupported assertions.

Quote[/b] ]The philosophical aspects of many religions have served to answer certain types of questions in ways that seem reasonable and prove valuable to many people in a practical way in their everyday lives

Such as? When? What answers?

Quote[/b] ]What aspects of philosophy fall inside the realm of spiritual belief

None. It may be that religions have encompassed philosophy into themselves, but philosophy exists by itself, without need for religion.

Quote[/b] ]Why must people be confined to believing what is immediatly testable and seemingly logical

Because it works? Because nothing else does?

Feel free to stop using the fruits of scientific research- electronic equipment, cars, planes, modern clothing, housing, packaged food etc.

If we went by some sort of emotional 'don't bother testing things' - nothing would work. We'd still be living in squalor and filth. There was a time when everyone used your emotional, religious judgements ... it was called the Dark Ages. Do you know why?

Quote[/b] ]

So crazy people see things? Have you actually checked behind the light sockets for the ghost people? Perhaps they are really there. Can you say with certainty that noone is really hearing the voice of god?

Yes.

Next.

Quote[/b] ]It is possible to believe something that is not testable at the time and that according to logic based on current limited knowledge may seem illogical and yet be proved right with time. Some leaps of faith are rewarded.

Attempt to develop that without using the scientific method. Attempt to discover / prove this 'something' without going about it logically.

Can't be done.

Wrong, anyway. Name a modern example (IE from after we started using scientific methods)

Trains going above 60 mph was thought to be impossible, but science predicted it wasn't. Heavier than air flight was thought to be impossible.... etc.

Quote[/b] ]In 'spiritual' matters and broad currently non disprovable philosophies ('there is god') it is inevitably a subjective judgement as to what seems logical and reasonable.

No it isn't. Some people aren't logical or reasonable. Ask an AI.

Quote[/b] ]If believing in Pixies helps people through life then so be it.

But they don't. Its somewhat similar to a hard drug addiction - it feels good but is ultimately bad for you.

Quote[/b] ]Unless you can come up with a conscionable way of eliminating billions of believers within my lifetime

Education. The more of it a person has, the less likely they are to be religious.

Quote[/b] ]Buddhists are happier. Scientific fact

Philosophy.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I would really love to answer your questions right now but ive only had a few hours of sleep in the past 48 hours and id like to avoid dying of exhaustion.

Science is pretty much guesswork. Reasonable seeming educated guesswork informed by observation. Who has seen the truth ,who has heard it or touched it? All we appear to have is our body to sense and our mind to interpret. Even our bodies are perceived and interpreted. We (us here now) can it appears never know the truth truly unless certain religions arent bullshit or we recreate the truth in our minds totally and without corruption (seemingly an impossible feat for puny humans). Thats part of religions appeal of course.

What we experience are shadows are they not? However often you repeat an experiment it will not give you access to the truth of what you are investigating anymore than tasting chicken will give you the truth of the chicken (astoundingly bad example but im falling asleep here). Its just data.  

How to perceive the truth without corrupting interpretation?

Some interpreted signals in our brains does not the truth make. Science is great at filling in truth shaped holes in our awareness but it will never as far as i can see allow you or i to see the truth in itself. You make what you assume to be reasonable assumptions. You can talk science fiction and your visions of the far future in which science might arrive at a total understanding of everything encountered but at the moment our understanding compared to that is incredibly primitive.

 You may believe in the truth, but you know nothing.  

Imagine god is the truth and then prove it.

The vengeful god who talks in my head is really laughing at you now  

(what a scary smilie)

Not really. I think im just arguing for arguments sake now. somebody stop me.z....z..zzzz.zzzz.zzzzzzzaghhhh