Conversion

[Dexter Sinister]

For those who have definite opinions - religious or otherwise - why is it we feel the need to prove it to others what we believe.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can tell you why I do it, and why I constantly challenge religious belief and religious explanations of everything. In all of human history we have found only one method for reliably establishing the truth content of ideas, and that is the method of science. It's about logic and evidence: how does nature actually behave when probed? That experimental attitude is responsible for much of the quality of our lives, and it's only about 400 years old. The medical science that prolongs our lives, the technological gadgets like this computer that inform and entertain us, even something as mundane as the clean fresh water that comes out of our household taps and the sewage systems that safely carry away our wastes, are products of science. Science and the technologies it fosters have improved our lives immeasurably; they work, and they work consistently and reliably. A smallpox vaccination will protect you indefinitely against a horrible disease that once killed millions, and it works whether you believe in it or not. No religion can make a claim like that.

I am a committed and unapologetic admirer of science and technology. It is demonstrably the best way we've ever found for understanding the world we live in, and in my view, if you reject its precepts, you are simply wrong. Analyses and understandings that are not based on reason and evidence and the methods of science have no credibility with me, and religious belief is at the top of the list of things I reject as irrational, unfounded, and undemonstrable. 10,000 years of religious belief has made no contribution to the quality of our lives anywhere close to what science and technology have done for us. It wasn't very long ago, only a generation or two, that parents could routinely expect most of their children to die of infections before they were 10 years old. That hardly ever happens anymore, at least in what's called the developed world, and science is the reason why.

Irrationality doesn't go anywhere, it's just wrong. That's why I constantly challenge religious beliefs and religiously-based understandings of the way things are. They are fundamentally irrational, based on belief in the absence of evidence, and often in the face of the evidence, and that's not a good way to understand things or solve problems.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If I was detected to have cancer, Yes, I would pray. If, my God is willing to heal me, directly or with whatever resources are available to mankind, then so be it. But if not, then I will still hold my faith as if I had never gotten Cancer.

I don't believe that either. If god's really running it all, he'd be responsible for you getting cancer in the first place. You might want to ask him why he let that happen to you before you ask him to fix it.

 

[look3467]

I don't believe that either. If god's really running it all, he'd be responsible for you getting cancer in the first place. You might want to ask him why he let that happen to you before you ask him to fix it.

In a perfect world:
There would be absolutely no growth, no demonstration of love, or forgiveness, no buildings to build, no kingdoms to rule, no diseases to catch, and no death.

We wouldn't need to propagate for sex would be hum drum, no excitement, no thrill, no attraction.

These are just a few of the things that would be lacking in a perfect world.

If than, that were so, what possible good would we be? Everything is perfect, what would there be for us to add?

Now, lets say it is not a perfect world and all those things apply, now we have an opportunity to grow, improve, learn, build better things and always striving forward for ourselves and for all of humanity.

To understand it as I do, requires faith in a God who tells us all this things and in which we in the midst of striving, suffering, we are ever learning to deal with them, overcome many of them and actually become of some worth to ourselves and to mankind.

I don't have any difficulty with any of the sciences, discoveries and how this world can be hell for some and heaven for others.

I can understand why some folks can not see to see God as God.

Growth is to sciences what growth is to knowledge of God.

Both work hand in hand, science for the flesh, and God for our spirits.

To show that even today understanding can be found in the bible:
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Science is of the world, to be used by the world as a tool to better one self and others.
In that aspect, you are absolutely correct.

But science does not hold all the answers until the one to whom all is credited to, releases bit by bit, information as the striving of mankind enfolds.

Striving is a catalyst for growth, and is needed as a contrast.

A child born is perfect in innocence, but as it grows, in knowledge and strength of spirit, must endure striving.

So, you question as to why God allows sufferings, well, if my answer does not give some satisfaction, then nothing of God will.

And all I can say, is the very best to you, and that you would prosper as far as your belief will take you, for truly, I would not wish anything bad come your way, even if you don't believe in God.

Friends, AJ

 

[Minority Observer84]

Gee ... think by the numbers? I prefer to seek my own answers.

Wolf

Math is the answer . To everything . Everything has a mathematical link and everything is mathematically quantifiable . It's just for some things we haven't figured the math out yet . Mathematics is logical , sensible and most of all provable it's the ultimate tool for analyzing our universe .

 

[look3467]

Math is the answer . To everything . Everything has a mathematical link and everything is mathematically quantifiable . It's just for some things we haven't figured the math out yet . Mathematics is logical , sensible and most of all provable it's the ultimate tool for analyzing our universe .

The bible is structured on numbers and is also mathematically workable?
7 is divided by 2 = 3.5 =equal the two witness, one for the first half of 7 and the second for the second half of 7.
Each day of 7 is divided by one, yet equal to 24 hours or one day.

No, if one could, I say could, calculate a day (24hr period)taken out of time, that day would split time between two distinct worlds of time. The former from the latter.

That day has been taken out of time, not to ever be numbered amongst the days, the weeks or the years.
That day, is the day commencing at 6pm Friday evening and ending at 6pm Saturday evening.

That is the day Jesus became God delivering the world from its eternal death sentence.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Unforgiven]

Pretty tough to deny the effects of a positive mind set in the face of life shattering illness.

 

[look3467]

Pretty tough to deny the effects of a positive mind set in the face of life shattering illness.

It is without a spiritual source of strength to joust or boast the weakness of the flesh.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

It is without a spiritual source of strength to joust or boast the weakness of the flesh.

Peace>>>AJ

i love you Aj....do you want to see my circumsision...can we bond...lets compare.....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

In a perfect world:
There would be absolutely no growth, no demonstration of love, or forgiveness, no buildings to build, no kingdoms to rule, no diseases to catch, and no death.

That's a very strange definition of a perfect world. No growth? No demonstration of love or forgiveness? Nothing to build? Nothing to do? You're equating perfection with stasis, nothing ever changes. That's not a perfect world and human nature would never accept it as such, it's a deadly boring world. Sounds more like Hell to me.

But I don't believe Hell exists either.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The bible is structured on numbers and is also mathematically workable?
7 is divided by 2 = 3.5 =equal the two witness, one for the first half of 7 and the second for the second half of 7.
Each day of 7 is divided by one, yet equal to 24 hours or one day.

3.5 equals two? Seven divided by one is 24? C'mon AJ, what kind of numerological nonsense is that?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Pretty tough to deny the effects of a positive mind set in the face of life shattering illness.

Maybe so, but there's no evidence it'll affect the outcome, it'll just make the sufferer's decline and ultimate death less unpleasant. You can try to be upbeat about it, set your affairs in order, tell everybody you love that you love them, and recognize that death is something we all face sooner or later and accept it when your time comes, or you can sink into depression and anger and make your life and the lives of those who love you a misery. I've seen both patterns more times than I care to remember. My mother did the former, my father did the latter. But either way, we're all going to die, and then we'll find out what this discussion's really about. Or if it's about anything at all.

 

[MikeyDB]

You're misrepresenting atheism a little, I think. There are a few who'll categorically state that they believe there is no god, but the more common position, and my own, is that they do not believe there is one. It's a lack of belief in god's presence, not a positive belief in his absence. Personally, I think the agnostic position on this issue is usually pretty lame. Agnosticism on some issues is perfectly legitimate, such as in cases where we know there is a definitive answer to a question but we don't know what it is yet. Extraterrestrial life is a good example: either it does or doesn't exist, we don't know which yet but the question is ultimately answerable, at least in principle, so the agnostic position works for that one. That's what Richard Dawkins calls, with approval, Temporary Agnosticism in Practice. He also identifies what he calls Permanent Agnosticism in Principle, for questions that can never be answered no matter how much evidence we have because the idea of evidence isn't applicable to them. That's the usual position of religious agnostics. Dawkins argues, as would I, that the question of god's existence belongs in the Temporary Agnosticism in Practice category. Either god exists or he doesn't, and it's a legitimate scientific question because a universe with a god in it ought to be detectably different from one without. We don't yet have the evidence to provide a definitive answer, but the question ought to be answerable, and in the meantime we can use the evidence we have to shade the probabilities, which come down pretty clearly against god's existence at the moment. It's possible we don't properly understand the evidence we do have and have thus shaded the probabilities all wrongly, so in that sense you're right that atheism is as arrogant as fundamentalism, if by that you mean atheism in the sense of a positive belief in god's absence, not a lack of belief in his presence.

Bit of a digression, but nobody who knows me will be surprised by it. What would it take to make a believer out of me? A single, well-attested, incontrovertible miracle, an event that admits of no other possible explanation but divine intervention in the normal order of things. It would have to be something pretty dramatic, like a big finger appearing in the sky pointing at me, witnessed by thousands of sober and reliable people, who also hear a booming voice intoning "You're wro o o o n n n n g g g!" I know that sounds flippant, but that's the scale of event it would take. Another example: a nearby supernova whose radiation would destroy all life on earth, but Jupiter moves into position and stays there, in defiance of everything we understand about orbital mechanics, to shade the earth from it.

In the last year of her life I made a deal with my mother. She was a deeply committed Christian believer and knew she didn't have much time left on this earth (she was 84 and visibly failing) and she agreed that after her death she would show me the correctness of her view of things by manifesting herself to me in a way that could not possibly be misinterpreted or explained any other way but as a miraculous suspension of the rules of nature as I understand them. She was absolutely certain she could do it, I was equally certain she could not, she knew it and also knew she'd have to punch through my deep skepticism and all my understanding of how easy it is to fool yourself into believing things you want to believe that aren't actually true. She died 16 January 2005. She has not reappeared in any manner, not even as something I could explain away as a grief-induced hallucination. There's been nothing. That doesn't definitively mean she was wrong, or that I was right, but it does shade the probabilities in my favour.

Dexter

Interesting contribution Dex.

Directed effort in the attempt to shape the material, the physical/corporeal substance of the life dynamic to achieve a desired or “better” condition or experience can only proceed from apprehension and understanding of the nature of that substance.

Effort directed by availability to questioning the nature of existential qualia…guided by imagination, speculation and ontological inquiry resting upon a foundation of integrated and synthesized knowledge and experience.

As far as manipulation of structures and the utilization of ‘natural’ forces…(i.e. occurring as agent of change in and of the material universe and inhering in the interrelationship that exists between all matter), “progress” has always been and will always be product of inquiry and tested hypotheses…producing repeatable and hence predictable outcomes…

We can of course reduce everything encountered as part of our apprehension of the nature of material/substantive existence to its basic non-reducible elements….

I can’t argue that “religion” has served mankind to this end to any significant degree approaching that of the scientific method.

It may well turn out that the reason why you like Handel’s Messiah or Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” more than say Hector Berlioz’s music or paintings by Pieter Bruegel or Heironymus Bosch is simply because elements within those compositions please you on some level dictated by dopamine or serotonin levels, but would you entertain the notion that some characteristic or quality inhering to these compositions pleases you because of interrelationships which may exist that aren’t qualified or quantifiable by any metric available to the scientific method?

If it’s fair and reasonable to entertain the idea that “substance” like oh say “dark matter” or the Tau particle (questions that plague even the malleable constructs of scientific hypotheses like string theory etc)…may arise from some source or epiphenomenon unrelated to that part of our understanding of the nature of existence that we use to satisfy our interests by, through application of current “understanding” of the “nature” of our universe?

If for example we all as sentient beings intuit/feel/apprehend “love” as the same thing, that could of course mean that the particular components and “stuff” that contribute to the perception of an emotion called “love”, the quantum flux of potentials swirling around in an otherwise chaotic ballet of intangible and all but ethereal background hiss of electromagnetic radiation, how might one construct an argument for both the universality of this “emotion” and what biological or evolutionary “advantage” accrues to beings vulnerable to its detection?

I wouldn’t suggest that a god or supra-phenomenal entity is the well-spring of these kinds of forces or experiences, but one must ask why something like “love” or “beauty” have the influence they have to direct human behavior.

Certainly it’s fair and reasonable to suggest that the very insubstantiality of these phenomena leave them and in fact render them suitable as tools or devices used to manipulate human emotional states that result in unsavory practices like animal and human sacrifice, Jihads and Inquisitions, but will the understanding of what these conditions actually are simpify or complicate our self-inquiry?

Would you say that there is a possibility in all the universe or in the meta-universe for that matter that explanations may exist, that are simply beyond the means provided by “science” as we currently understand this idea, and that while our science may permit mathematical or theoretical models that satisfy our limited abilities in this variation on existence, that something may exist that eludes our understanding? (outside the scientific paradigm)

In the greater practicality of anti-static laundry additives and genetically modified pseudo-cheese delivered in long-polymer plastic tubes, human energy devoted to pleasing our appetites and desires will inevitably garner far greater popularity than will understanding the substantive genesis of empathy compassion and love, but is humankind the greater for his facility at manipulating substance?

We’ve surrendered our art and creativity to the dollar and our emotions and intellect are subjugated by adopted symbolisms like patriotism and loyalty to ideologies…

Will building a better mouse trap prepare mankind for what exists beyond human understanding? Is that important?

Will increasing the chasm between our understanding of substantive reality and human sentience on one hand while minimalizing those intangible and ellusive properties/energies and dynamics characterized roughly as “spirituality” on the other, serve humankind’s sojourn through the cosmos more adequately than acknowledging that we simply don’t and perhaps can’t “know” everything?

Will understanding how a thought becomes a dream broaden the human canvas or shrink it?

 

[Vereya]

For those who have definite opinions - religious or otherwise - why is it we feel the need to prove it to others what we believe.

I have no wish to share anything whether to try to convince another that my belief is positive, or negatively - to have to defend my belief.

It is mine - I need no confirmations. Life itself is enough proof there is a reason.

It's a very good question, Curiousity! I guess part of it is just the childish desire to share the truth with the others :lol: And then we get surprised, why the others don't want our truth and keep sticking to their fallacies 8O
Besides, voicing your beliefs and convictions is one of the ways to find like-minded people.
And the "intellectual squabbles" over the different points of view really do give some spice to life.

 

[Vereya]

It wouldn't end my spirituality, as I stated, but it would drive a skeptical nail further into my religious belief.

The reason being, that almost every 'miracle' out there has been accomplished by a variety of illusionists. What you call 'proof' is impossible, due to the faulty nature of humanity's perceptions of the world. If people felt they'd seen proof, I'd probably doubt it as illusion.

What I trust, is my own mind. That thrumming sense of a deeper power surging through the world. I'd have much less faith in a physical manifestation and 'proof', than I do in my own senses of the 'supernatural'.

If you do have some sense of the supernatural, Karrie, how come you wouldn't believe it if you saw some supernatural occurence with your own eyes? Looks like you believe in supernatural that is in your head, in the supernatural that you think of, but you don't believe in it when it happens? So the conclusion is - you believe in things you don't believe in? Or do you disbelieve the things you believe?

 

[Vereya]

In a perfect world:
There would be absolutely no growth, no demonstration of love, or forgiveness, no buildings to build, no kingdoms to rule, no diseases to catch, and no death.

We wouldn't need to propagate for sex would be hum drum, no excitement, no thrill, no attraction.

These are just a few of the things that would be lacking in a perfect world.

Umm... must be something wrong with me, but this dismal picture just doesn't look like a perfect world to me. Or was that sarcasm?..

 

[karrie]

If you do have some sense of the supernatural, Karrie, how come you wouldn't believe it if you saw some supernatural occurence with your own eyes? Looks like you believe in supernatural that is in your head, in the supernatural that you think of, but you don't believe in it when it happens? So the conclusion is - you believe in things you don't believe in? Or do you disbelieve the things you believe?

Hmm... hard to explain. I guess my distrust would lie with a single individual exhibiting the supernatural. And I'm not saying I would disbelieve necessarily. But it would be met with great skepticism.

Now, a supernatural occurence that was, well, natural, happening on a broad scale across the face of the earth, or occuring within animals, I would easily believe.

People though, well, that's where my mistrust lies ultimately.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Would you say that there is a possibility in all the universe or in the meta-universe for that matter that explanations may exist, that are simply beyond the means provided by “science” as we currently understand this idea, and that while our science may permit mathematical or theoretical models that satisfy our limited abilities in this variation on existence, that something may exist that eludes our understanding? (outside the scientific paradigm) ... etc...

Lot of hard questions there, Mikey. I'm not really sure how to answer them all. I'd certainly immediately agree that there are questions that so far elude our understanding, but that's just another way of saying we don't know everything. Of course we don't, only an idiot would claim otherwise, but I'd never agree that we will *never* understand them. I believe--one of my few articles of faith--that nature is consistent and, at least in principle, comprehensible, though I'd also immediately agree that we may not be smart enough to comprehend it all. The evidence we have so far strongly suggests that nature behaves consistently and reliably according to certain rules, and any postmodern deconstructionist who thinks scientific truths are human inventions of no greater or lesser value than any so-called spiritual insights is invited to jump off the peak of the roof at the front of my house into the rock and juniper garden below. Science will tell us exactly what'll happen: you'll accelerate at a known rate and hit the rock garden and junipers at a predictable velocity, and seriously injure or kill yourself. And that'll happen no matter what you believe.

There are objective truths, and there is an objective reality out there that exists regardless of our limited perceptions of it. Science is the only known way to those truths, and when science and mysticism (a catch-all term I'm using here to include all forms of religious and other non-rational beliefs) come into conflict over claims about the way things work or the nature of reality, irrationality has to yield to science. Much of the history of the last four centuries can be understood as religion giving ground to the scientific revolution. Science works, consistently, predictably, and reliably, in ways religion and faith and mysticism do not and can not. It's also true that two of our three best and most reliable scientific theories, relativity and quantum mechanics (the third is evolution) cannot both be true in any absolute sense, because they're fundamentally inconsistent. But they're close enough to whatever "the truth" really is that they can be used to engineer products that work consistently and reliably. Every electronic device in our lives depends on our understanding of quantum mechanics for its operation, and GPS satellites and detectors depend on general relativity for their accuracy. These aren't just airy-fairy theories far removed from the real world, they have real and measurable consequences that have to be considered in designing and building things.

My personal view, admittedly just a hypothesis, not a fact, is that reality is fractal, which really means that at whatever scale we look at things, the level of complexity is the same. Think of a shoreline, for instance. You can see it on a map at various scales, and you'll see an irregular line marking the boundary between water and land. But go to the shoreline and look at it, and you'll see variations no map at any useful scale could represent. You can go down to the level of individual sand grains on a beach, or farther, to the level of individual molecules in the mineral grains that make up the beach, or even farther, to the quantum level of electrons and protons and neutrons, and at every scale the line marking the boundary is equally complex and irregular. You can go even farther: protons and neutrons aren't fundamental, they're made of three different kinds of more basic things called quarks. And what are quarks made of? We don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn they're made of something even more fundamental. Strings maybe. And then the strings will turn out to be made of something else...

We're never going to figure it all out. but the joy is in the journey, not the destination.

 

[Impetus]

They have that covered....it is obviously because "God wanted the person to be with Him".
The typical MO of the snake oil salesman is to have both eventualities covered.

Muz

I don't believe that either. If god's really running it all, he'd be responsible for you getting cancer in the first place. You might want to ask him why he let that happen to you before you ask him to fix it.

 

[Unforgiven]

Maybe so, but there's no evidence it'll affect the outcome, it'll just make the sufferer's decline and ultimate death less unpleasant. You can try to be upbeat about it, set your affairs in order, tell everybody you love that you love them, and recognize that death is something we all face sooner or later and accept it when your time comes, or you can sink into depression and anger and make your life and the lives of those who love you a misery. I've seen both patterns more times than I care to remember. My mother did the former, my father did the latter. But either way, we're all going to die, and then we'll find out what this discussion's really about. Or if it's about anything at all.

Or we don't findout anything and it all just fades to black.

Is praying any different than just keeping a positive attitude? I'm sure the view from there will differ from the view from here.

 

[MikeyDB]

Dex

Thanks for your considered and erudite response.

I have a similar respect for science and scientific method…if you would.

What does the human proclivity to invest in mythos and abstraction for its under-girding moral and ethical theses say about us? Doesn’t it suggest that when reason fails and ignorance reigns supreme that we will knowingly and willingly turn to fantasy and imagination in the face of comprehension and apprehension of the very real and tangible component elements of our experience of existence?

We acknowledge that human religious practices over the entire span of recorded history and from paleontological evidence pre-dating that record that our ignorance regarding the nature of ‘being’ leads us to invest-in, to immerse ourselves in… self-delusion? Neanderthal shamans unearthed from peat bogs in various locations around the world serve to illustrate that humanity (although Neanderthal wasn’t Homo Sapiens…but a “close” genetic relation) has practiced this willing self-delusion for a very long time.

And despite accommodating this fantasy of the existence of a divine realm and omnipotent causal entity as the creator being…we’ve rejected the reality that pulses around us. We can now afford to forgive the ignorance of our ancestors when it comes to many events that occur as expression of entirely natural phenomena, because human understanding of the nature of our experience of ‘being’ informs us through greater knowledge about that nature as derived through observation hypothesis and experimentation over generations. We evolved…..

And yet it is only our understanding of and facility to manipulate substance that has evolved.

Life forms evolve. Evolution is about adaptation and survival.

Humanity it seems would rather cling to fantastic stories and juvenile affirmations created and popularized during the adolescence of human evolution. Our psychology has been manacled and hobbled by the substitution of mythology and fantasy for rational thought. Whether we explore Roman or Greek mythology, or examine aboriginal pantheism from tribal societies around the planet, causality credited to a force or energy beyond the ken of human understanding has served as sub-structure to political and ideological notions that have in these perhaps final days of human existence built and maintained the mechanisms of our “progress” but in so doing have also built the engine of our demise.

We will and perhaps have already ceased to evolve in a mental or intellectual sense because the ignorance and misunderstandings of long-dead civilizations are kept “alive”.

Global conflicts that have yes certainly resulted in far greater facility with shaping our substantive universe through technological development in the pursuit of wider-ranging and more lethal weaponry rely on defining differences. The ultimate defining “difference” has been what we “believe”…

We believe that our notions ideas and characterizations of this imaginary extra-worldly construct are the unassailable and irrefutably “right” vision of human development. That there is some epiphany, some blinding moment of clarity that will dawn in human consciousness that informs us that yes it is “our” god and only “our” ‘god’ that is the only “real” and “true” god. A god that demands of us that we kill anyone and everyone failing to subscribe to our ‘beliefs’ regardless that this endeavor involves collateral destruction of millions of life forms and the eradication of the means of life for millions.

I have no doubt that the “believer” will claim usurpation and high jacking of their “beliefs” to serve ideological and political ends…with the believer as much a victim to the carnage of this self-defeating behavior as the non-believer…

It’s long past time that humanity divested itself of this artificial and destructive inclination to cling to the unsubstantial and the ethereal and comes to terms with the reality that is unescapable and inevitable and that permeates our experience of ‘being’.

We stopped incarcerating the disturbed and the infirm when we understood that “demonic possession” was a myth. We stopped dancing for rain and bountiful harvests when we began to understand geography and meteorology. We abandoned our fantasies when we chose to replace willing self-delusion with reason and understanding.
We may be evolving but so long as there are significant numbers among us willing to stop the clock and subscribe to imaginary constructs as pathway to “purpose” and “meaning”, we allow and in fact embolden those who’d find greater comfort in embracing ignorance and delusion.