"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, we weren't taking about the academic classification of folklore tales. So most of what you post is irrelevant. We were talking about characteristic features of what we commonly refer to as 'fairy tales' today.

(Grimms' tales are 'fairy tales' by the way, because that is what we, today, call them and that is what everyone else thinks of whe ...[text shortened]... now some possibilities which may be correct than to believe in something that definitely is not.

Well I can defend that claim if challenged.

I am not convinced it's worth the hassle in Freaky's case.


And I don't think sciences view of the formation of the universe and of life here
on Earth is superior to the bible creation story.
I know it is.

I know this because the science is actually useful.
It tells us things about reality that we can and have put to good use.
Things that if wrong, wouldn't have been useful and wouldn't have worked.

The bible creation story... Is totally useless. It's not even a good morality tale.
And in so much as it prevents people from accepting the science it is worse than
useless, as it is actually causing harm. Both individually and to society and
civilisation as a whole.



There is a period of history called the dark ages.
It's where the philosophy and ideals of the classical world got displaced by those
of the medieval, those of Christianity. As yet unaltered by centuries of development
of secular morality.

During this time scientific thought and development as well as social and political
development slowed to a crawl and in places went backwards.

It isn't the only factor, but the spread of Christianity plays a significant if not dominant
role in this dark, and backwards period of history.

One we didn't start to crawl out of until the enlightenment when people re-discovered
the ideas of ancient Athens and Rome.

It is from the philosophers of that time that we get the basis of science, logic, reason,
and democracy.


And it is from those things that we have built the modern world, with modern secular morality
and modern science, that has made epic strides in improving and lengthening our lives.



When you look through history, at the religion and religious ideas stifling scientific thought,
you will find that the monotheistic religions are right at the head of the pack.

And how do I know science is right?

It works.

Religion doesn't.

And I don't think sciences view of the formation of the universe and of life here on Earth is superior to the bible creation story.
I know it is.

Okay googlefudge.

Could your next post tell us something about why there is an earth and why man exists upon it ?

I know this because the science is actually useful.
It tells us things about reality that we can and have put to good use.
Things that if wrong, wouldn't have been useful and wouldn't have worked.

I watched a program yesterday on new high tech weapons. It seems to funds needed to channel into better and better ways to kill off human enemies is exhaustless ? I saw smart rifles and smart guns which can be computer programed to explode a shell given a certain number of feet traveled.

What's wrong with man that one of the things he never runs out of money and energy for is to make more effective killing instruments?

How so many ingenious systems are soon followed by "hackers" of one type or another, who learn to exploit the system ?

What is wrong with mankind that we need more and more weapons and locks and laws ?

The bible creation story... Is totally useless. It's not even a good morality tale. And in so much as it prevents people from accepting the science it is worse than useless, as it is actually causing harm. Both individually and to society and civilisation as a whole.

So you should be able to provide some useful answers above.

Why does nature need a creature on earth smart enough to make hydrogen bombs that can wipe out every living thing if its use gets out of hand ?

Why are we here googlefudge ?

Please don't wait for some tag team buddies to come in for you and say "Why does there have to be answers for these things anyway ?!"

You have this vastly superior science thing. Tell us how come we are here, and how come we are here in such a way fighting off hackers and more and more funds poured into killing off our enemies.

Originally posted by sonship

And I don't think sciences view of the formation of the universe and of life here on Earth is superior to the bible creation story.
I know it is.

Okay googlefudge.

Could your next post tell us something about [b]why there is an earth and why man exists upon it ?

[quote]
I know this because the science is actually useful. ...[text shortened]... in such a way fighting off hackers and more and more funds poured into killing off our enemies.[/b]

In the second two "Back to the Future" films, Marty has to learn to stop getting
into trouble because he wouldn't back down any-time anyone called him chicken.

I am not going to answer your questions simply because you threaten to declare
an internet victory if I don't.

I have no control over anyone else in these forums, and if someone else wants to
deal with your questions I will be interested to see what their answers are, even if
you are not.

I may or may not answer these questions when/if I get the time, or have the inclination
to do so.

I quite possibly will, but if it comes down to a toss up between answering your questions
and watching Strictly Come Dancing then I'm watching Strictly. You're not that interesting.



However, in lieu of a full answer at this point, I would remind you that while I can point to
many fantastic advances and achievements brought about by science and reason that
make all out lives immensely better... When it comes down to it I care about what is or is not
actually true.

And as I have recently pointed out in several threads, if you care about what is true that
means not caring [or not caring as much] if the truth is actually nice or not.

If you claim (and I would disagree btw) that the world would be a bad place without gods
then I say that that is irrelevant to whether or not god actually exists.
Maybe the world is a bad place, where natural disasters kill tens of thousands of good decent
people for no reason... Hey wait a minute...



I accept science's description of the world because it's useful, accurate and true.

Whether or not you find that view nice or not is irrelevant to it's truth.


EDIT: and no, I couldn't have answered your questions properly in the time it took to write that.

Possibly someone with the gift of succinctness could, But I couldn't write a succinct answer if my life
depended on it.

Originally posted by sonship

And I don't think sciences view of the formation of the universe and of life here on Earth is superior to the bible creation story.
I know it is.

Okay googlefudge.

Could your next post tell us something about [b]why there is an earth and why man exists upon it ?

[quote]
I know this because the science is actually useful. ...[text shortened]... in such a way fighting off hackers and more and more funds poured into killing off our enemies.[/b]

1) Earth is here because of natural processes that create planets.

2) We are here because of evolutionary processes that resulted in us - and countless others.

3) We kill each other (summary of your weapons story) because we are not angels of perfection. We follow animal instincts that sometimes make us hurt others.

Religion seems to be quite a nice catalyst for point three, by the way.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"Why Do Men Reject God?"

"Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept of a Supreme Being. They may have had a perverted sense of Who that Being is, but they were convinced that there is a Personal Power greater than man. Given the evidence available, faith is reasonable. That is why the psalmist decl ...[text shortened]... e other reasons for rejecting the possibility of a Supreme Being and accepting the consequences?[/b]

Mankind rejects God because He has become inconvenient. God has too many rules, and the rules don't work with the lifestyle.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Mankind rejects God because He has become inconvenient. God has too many rules, and the rules don't work with the lifestyle.

Did you reject the Muslim God, or Wotan, because his rules were too inconvenient to you?

If not, why make the presumption that the rest of mankind rejects your God for this reason?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, we weren't taking about the academic classification of folklore tales. So most of what you post is irrelevant. We were talking about characteristic features of what we commonly refer to as 'fairy tales' today.

(Grimms' tales are 'fairy tales' by the way, because that is what we, today, call them and that is what everyone else thinks of whe ...[text shortened]... now some possibilities which may be correct than to believe in something that definitely is not.

I see.

So, if I were to summarize, you are admitting your stance was wrong.

Do I have that about right?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I can defend that claim if challenged.

I am not convinced it's worth the hassle in Freaky's case.


And I don't think sciences view of the formation of the universe and of life here
on Earth is superior to the bible creation story.
I know it is.

I know this because the science is actually useful.
It tells us things about reality that we ...[text shortened]... t the head of the pack.

And how do I know science is right?

It works.

Religion doesn't.

And I don't think sciences view of the formation of the universe and of life here
on Earth is superior to the bible creation story.
I know it is.
Ah.
So the thing you said, but then said you weren't saying is now what you are defiantly declaring: that science has a theory/postulation/statement regarding how life came to be on this planet (not sure how I got that soooo wrong).

What is that science, pray tell?

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Why are we here ?

WHY?

"Why?" ... it's a very big question deserving of a very big answer.

Two basic possibilities.

1. Because of the result of natural processes that we don't fully understand
(but are getting closer and clolser to each decade)
OR
2. A supernatural being (don't know where it came from) poofed us into existence.

On second thoughts; .. just one possibility.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I see.

So, if I were to summarize, you are admitting your stance was wrong.

Do I have that about right?

Let me see.

You cannot post a single resource that states that talking animals are not commonly associated with fairly tales.

I have posted numerous that state they are. There are plenty more.

The first resource you posted as evidence supporting your case states that talking animals are commonly associated with fairy tales.

The second source you posted has a list of fairy tales, of which many include talking animals, in some cases appearing more often than the things you claim are commonly associated with fairy tales.

Every piece of evidence supports my position, and contradicts yours. So, on balance, things don't look too good for you. It's a pity you won't just acknowledge it and move on, but that is the YEC mindset.

If you claim victory here, without any argument to support your position, and where you are so patently wrong, then you see my point about it not being worth debating you on whether the literal interpretation of Genesis can be dismissed by science as 'nonsense'.

We can dismiss what you say as easily as RJHinds, but any debate is futile.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Let me see.

You cannot post a single resource that states that talking animals are not commonly associated with fairly tales.

I have posted numerous that state they are. There are plenty more.

The first resource you posted as evidence supporting your case states that talking animals are commonly associated with fairy tales.

The second sour ...[text shortened]... ce as 'nonsense'.

We can dismiss what you say as easily as RJHinds, but any debate is futile.

I understand you're having some difficulty getting your mind around the fact that your position is wrong, but that doesn't erase the fact that it is.

You have cited Wikipedia as a source, so why not do the simple thing: type in "fairy tale" into the search engine of Wiki and see what pops up? The link I provided is that very thing, which was first quoted without the reference, then quoted with the reference, and is still there today. In the list of eight characters commonly associated with fairy tales, talking animals is not one of them.
That is not to say that you will not ever find a talking animal in a fairy tale; rather, that these eight characters are the ones most commonly associated with the technically-categorized genre known as "fairy tale."
Googlefudge--- in his attempt to create an air of knowledge--- uses technical terms in a most haphazard manner on a very consistent basis. For the issue at hand, he dismissed the creation account found in Genesis as a fairy tale. He was called on it, and backtracked, claiming he meant the term colloquially... which even by that loose definition, the label is incorrect.

One of the other references you cited was what turned out to be the Brothers' Grimm collection of folktales Children's and Household Tales, not, as you erroneously stated, "Fairy Tales." We already have found how that source laid your claims equally ineffectual. Not even sure why you continue the argument, really.

It's a pity you won't just acknowledge it and move on, but that is the YEC mindset.
This.
Here is the center of your problem: you simply don't read, or when you do, you either don't pay attention to what you do read or have difficulty analyzing what is being presented.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]WHY?

"Why?" ... it's a very big question deserving of a very big answer.

Two basic possibilities.

1. Because of the result of natural processes that we don't fully understand
(but are getting closer and clolser to each decade)
OR
2. A supernatural being (don't know where it came from) poofed us into existence.

On second thoughts; .. just one possibility.[/b]

"Why?" ... it's a very big question deserving of a very big answer.

Two basic possibilities.

1. Because of the result of natural processes that we don't fully understand
(but are getting closer and clolser to each decade)
OR
2. A supernatural being (don't know where it came from) poofed us into existence.

On second thoughts; .. just one possibility.

I don't think your answers cover much. They explain perhaps HOW we are here. They say nothing of the real WHY ?

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] "Why?" ... it's a very big question deserving of a very big answer.

Two basic possibilities.

1. Because of the result of natural processes that we don't fully understand
(but are getting closer and clolser to each decade)
OR
2. A supernatural being (don't know where it came from) poofed us into existence.

On second thoughts; .. just one p ...[text shortened]... our answers cover much. They explain perhaps HOW we are here. They say nothing of the real WHY ?

I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by 'why'.

I suspect that you are asking about meaning and purpose [for the universe]
and that implies/requires a mind to have had, and to imbue, the meaning and
purpose.

However if there is no god, no creator, just natural processes then there is
no mind, and thus no meaning or purpose.


Which means if that is what you are asking then the question is meaningless.


You might as well ask what the meaning or purpose of the asteroid that hit
Russia a few months back was...

It had no meaning or purpose, it was a rock, orbiting the sun under gravity,
and we got in the way. Nobody planned it, there was no design, no deeper meaning
just physics in action.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I understand you're having some difficulty getting your mind around the fact that your position is wrong, but that doesn't erase the fact that it is.

You have cited Wikipedia as a source, so why not do the simple thing: type in "fairy tale" into the search engine of Wiki and see what pops up? The link I provided is that very thing, which was first quot ...[text shortened]... er don't pay attention to what you do read or have difficulty analyzing what is being presented.

Calm down. It's not that important, except to point out your mindset and why no-one is interested in debating with you on the other issues.

Everyone else on this planet thinks talking animals are commonly associated with fairy tales.

No-one on this planet thinks the term 'fairy tale', used in conversation, should be taken to mean sub-categories 300-750 of folklore tales identified by Aarne-Thompson. You just sound silly making this point. Then again, even if it should, talking animals are commonly associated with these tales.

You are the only person who thinks that the term 'fairy tale', used in conversation, is a technical term. Again, you just make yourself look silly to claim this.

Even if talking animals were ninth on the list of things commonly associated with fairy tales, they would still be normally associated with them, which you claimed they were not.

Have a look here.

http://www.worldoftales.com/fairy_tales.html

This is what the world means by the term 'fairy tale'. It wouldn't even matter if you were technically right (which you aren't) and they were technically wrong. This is what the term means today.

If you don't wish to use language in the way everyone else on the planet does, then you should steer clear of debating on a public website.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Calm down. It's not that important, except to point out your mindset and why no-one is interested in debating with you on the other issues.

Everyone else on this planet thinks talking animals are commonly associated with fairy tales.

No-one on this planet thinks the term 'fairy tale', used in conversation, should be taken to mean sub-categories ...[text shortened]... y everyone else on the planet does, then you should steer clear of debating on a public website.

Haha.
You win, bro.

Lost every point, avoided every issue.
But you win.