Spirituality
02 Mar 07
03 Mar 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBetween you and Knightmeister, I'm beginning to think that Christian doctorine makes you brain turn to swiss cheese. Neither one of you has any idea about science.
Although nature may be considered a concept in some respects, there is no getting around its physical reality (as we presently understand both of the terms). When you say you can explain physical reality without the use of God (and necessarily, His creative and sustaining attributes), you have no way of doing so without bringing those same creative and su ...[text shortened]... to pound out another endless argument; I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement.
04 Mar 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowSounds like me. Both my parents were Christians and I still ask alot of annoying questions...............wait a second, I am still a Christian! Never mind.
My parents are both Christians, I asked really annoying questions in Sunday School from as young as 6 or 7 years old, I'd say I actually really became an atheist around age 12 or 13.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy is a tree?
Although nature may be considered a concept in some respects, there is no getting around its physical reality (as we presently understand both of the terms). When you say you can explain physical reality without the use of God (and necessarily, His creative and sustaining attributes), you have no way of doing so without bringing those same creative and su ...[text shortened]... to pound out another endless argument; I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement.
Because God made it so!
That is the problem with religion - it attempts to explain things in terms of human thoughts and experience. That if something happens, something else must have caused it and then when the explained causal relationships run out, there must be God. At the end of the rainbow as it were, there lies God.
As far as I'm concerned, the notion of a God is a cheap and easy cop-out when trying to understand the nature of things.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by buffalobillYou have described the core issue that has been an underlying (although unnecessary) conflictt between faith and science since at least the Enlightenment. Curious minds want to know how things work, how they came to be, what it's all about.
Why is a tree?
Because God made it so!
That is the problem with religion - it attempts to explain things in terms of human thoughts and experience. That if something happens, something else must have caused it and then when the explained causal relationships run out, there must be God. At the end of the rainbow as it were, there lies God.
As far as I' ...[text shortened]... the notion of a God is a cheap and easy cop-out when trying to understand the nature of things.
Some within the established religious organizations have interpreted such curiousity as anything from distraction at best to defiance at worst. That just goes to show that ERO's have been more concerned with retaining their tenuous power positions than remaining loyal to the truth. History is never kind to such inflexibility.
In further deflating the inflexible ERO's, science has mockingly poked fun at the untenable (and increasingly shrinking) ledge upon which ERO's have historically stood. Perhaps the best example of such biting criticism is a cartoon which depicts an obvious creationist standing in front of a chalkboard full of elaborate scientific formulas. In the midst of the formulas lays the key to his whole theory: "and then a miracle happened."
The slam succinctly speaks to the truth of ERO's position. It had become the don't-ask/don't-tell of their various administrations. But note that I use the word 'had.' Although mainstream had avoided the issue far beyond the expiration date, ERO's para-"ministries" got into the act in the 1970's. Today, 30 years later, the mainstream ERO's are much more involved in the debate.
And a funny thing happened on the way to God's funeral. The position formerly held by ERO's has become the position now violently held by some vocal atheists and/or scientists. Namely, we have a chalkboard full of elaborate scientific formulas, yet there exists this glaring gap.
That is what is meant by the earlier statements. When God is removed as the Creator, something else takes His place. According to some, matter (nature, physical reality) is eternal: always been here, always will be. According to others, the beginnings and endings are merely the opening and closing of an eternal cosmic belching.
Both fantasies insist on taking away any type of beginning, knowing that beginnings kill all theories.
That is the problem with religion - it attempts to explain things in terms of human thoughts and experience.
This is where you are incorrect. Assuming you have lumped the Bible in with all religions, your characterization fails. While the Bible does accomodate man's understanding in explaining some things, there are many things in which no accomodation is made whatsoever. For instance:
"In beginning, God..."
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, nothing does or needs to. That is the point of this whole thing I think. The other atheists and I do not believe that there was any intelligence or purposfulness behind the creation of the universe or anything. Nothing takes the place of God. Not believing in any religion but still believing an intelligence is behind the workings of the universe and causes or caused things to happen is not atheism.
"When God is removed as the Creator, something else takes His place."
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI do not believe that there was any intelligence or purposfulness behind the creation of the universe or anything.
No, nothing does or needs to. That is the point of this whole thing I think. The other atheists and I do not believe that there was any intelligence or purposfulness behind the creation of the universe or anything. Nothing takes the place of God. Not believing in any religion but still believing an intelligence is behind the workings of the universe and causes or caused things to happen is not atheism.
Two things which cannot be explained by such a view:
1. The intelligent manner in which the universe is sustained;
2. What initiated such a thing as reality.
...still believing an intelligence is behind the workings of the universe and causes or caused things to happen is not atheism.
I agree.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere are too many threads on the definition of nothingness and the existance of reality, etc, so lets not get into that for the moment, although it is my belief that it is explainable without God, and yours that it is not, let us just leave that alone for now.
[b] I do not believe that there was any intelligence or purposfulness behind the creation of the universe or anything.
Two things which cannot be explained by such a view:
1. The intelligent manner in which the universe is sustained;
2. What initiated such a thing as reality.
...still believing an intelligence is behind the workings of the universe and causes or caused things to happen is not atheism.
I agree.[/b]
Give me some examples of how the universe is sustained in an "intelligent manner". I don't see any evidence of this. I say that the universe is not "sustained in an intelligent manner", so that does not need a God to explain it. Give me evidence I'm wrong.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThat's my point too. Religionists insist there must be some intelligence in order for things to work or even exist. Because we want want it to be so doesn't make it true.
TGive me some examples of how the universe is sustained in an "intelligent manner". I don't see any evidence of this. I say that the universe is not "sustained in an intelligent manner", so that does not need a God to explain it. Give me evidence I'm wrong.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by buffalobillI rather like this post.
Why is a tree?
Because God made it so!
That is the problem with religion - it attempts to explain things in terms of human thoughts and experience. That if something happens, something else must have caused it and then when the explained causal relationships run out, there must be God. At the end of the rainbow as it were, there lies God.
As far as I' ...[text shortened]... the notion of a God is a cheap and easy cop-out when trying to understand the nature of things.
Like Freaky, I'm not so sure about the "trying to explain things in terms of human thoughts and experience" bit, perhaps more of a "trying to explain things within human 'sensibilities' and with human psychology" might be a better description. Thoughts Bill?
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen God is removed as the Creator, something else takes His place.
Perhaps the best example of such biting criticism is a cartoon which depicts an obvious creationist standing in front of a chalkboard full of elaborate scientific formulas. In the midst of the formulas lays the key to his whole theory: "and then a miracle happened."
According to some, matter (nature, physical reality) is eternal: always been here, alwa ...[text shortened]... things in which no accomodation is made whatsoever. For instance:
"In beginning, God..."
I disagree. You and I live in the same universe Freaky, we inhabit the same planes of existence. I just deny your imaginary friend, on grounds of parsimony. I need nothing to take his place. The existence of God, for example, doesn't preclude the Big Bang. However, the existence of the Big Bang does rather negate the need for a God.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would argue that God would be needed to start the Big Bang. Those gases had to originate from somewhere. Gases or anything else for that matter don't just pop out of nothingness.
[b]When God is removed as the Creator, something else takes His place.
The existence of God, for example, doesn't preclude the Big Bang. However, the existence of the Big Bang does rather negate the need for a God.[/b]
No matter how you look at it, you needed someone (God) to start it.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Who says God merely started it all and then hid behind a tree? Perhaps he is holding it all together a well?
I would argue that God would be needed to start the Big Bang. Those gases had to originate from somewhere. Gases or anything else for that matter don't just pop out of nothingness.
No matter how you look at it, you needed someone (God) to start it.