Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Science as you know it only denys God these guys believed why wouldnt you?Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Sure we can. Don't we do it all the time with the dreams that fuel our goals.
Consider Stephen Hawking or any other diasbled person that does great things despite the "reality" that they live in.

What reality is that and why would it mean that they can't do great things?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Consider for one minute the notion that I believe what I do because I have enough evidence and millions of other people in the world do too. ALL of us can't be wacked in the head.

There are around 4 billion people who aren't Christians; are they all 'wacked in the head'?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

My religion means evidence!! Not just blind belief!

So you don't have faith then?

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

I don't see the word evidence anywhere in there.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The founders of my faith died because they would not stop telling people about their evidence.

So what? Christianity isn't the only religion to have martyrs.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

What you believe affects what you can do. Some folks are told that they won't amount to much, they are told that their stupid, they are told they have psychologcial problems and these statements become real because they are believed.

I still don't know what this has to do with Stephen Hawkings.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Many of you say my experiences are not real. What makes you so sure?

The same thing that makes me sure that the people in institutions aren't really Napoleon.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

No, people have always wanted direction in living, the Christian walk does just that.

This doesn't answer my question. There are a vast amount of people who know about Christianity but aren't Christians, why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

You know helpful words help and hurtful words hurt. This is why the bible is of great use to me.

Why don't you just get one of these.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The resulting evidences of John 14:16 is enough to sustain my faith.

'And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;'

You obviously have a different definition of evidence than everybody else.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Answered prayer is enough to sustain my faith.

If you can prove that your prayers are answered then by all means prove it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Sounds like my drunken, angry atheist father, you must have read the same book he did.

I still don't understand what your fathers atheism has to do with anything. I'm sure that he also drank water and quite frankly that has as much to do with his morality as his atheism does. You've probably got atheism and nihilism mixed up, that would explain the fact that you seem to believe that athiests believe in nothing.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

With all the different systems of belief in the world, do really you mean everybody, or just people who live up to your standards?

I mean anyone who has a standard english dictionary.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I would love to. My prayer is for another person with the same message as mine will approach you in person. This person will be more adept with the bible than I and more educated to boot. Most importantly despite your current stand, you will want to listen to what this person has to say.

Is there any particular time-limit on this prayer, because if there isn't then short of replying to this post on my death-bed there's not a lot a can do to disprove it since you can just say that it will 'happen in the future'. How about something a little more concrete.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I have seen many here respond just like he did in this discussion.
It the way an atheist acts that I am keen to. His brother my uncle has the same mentality. I have mixed it up with atheists for a long time and see the same predictable pattern. Even if they are aware of it they still cant help themselves.

What response was that? The majority of the respondees only seem to be quite irritated that you fail to offer any evidence for your position despite repeatedly saying that you have some (although your lack of understanding of what evidence actually means might explain this). Your posts have painted you as a person who is amazingly stubborn and pig-headed, and refuses to listen to anything that challenges his pre-conceptions. All of your arguements have been dissected and dismantled yet you persist in trotting them out as though they were somehow new and impervious to criticism. Before casting blame on others I suggest you try to look at your posts with a neutral point of view in the hope you can see how irritating they are.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Why can't the right answer be none of the ones proposed so far?

It could be, but what reasons are there for thinking it might be?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

When we were wrong on the past it was often because of superstition, whereas now the scientific method means that we are getting things wrong less and less.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Pangalin

So you have faith in the scientific method, then

No, becase the scientific method has proven itself to work time and time again, while faith means having a belief in something despite lack of evidence.

When you get sick do you pray or go to a doctor?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Other than using the scientific method to measure things outside of its ability to be measured (it's fairly difficult to conduct controlled experiments when dealing with gods, I imagine), using induction to prove itself is also a little bit of a fun thing.

Why is god outside of our ability to be measured? He's always proving he exists in the old testament so why can't he do any of that stuff now? On the other hand if god has only ever existed outside of our universe and has never had anything to do with our universe than whether he exists or not is as irrelevent as last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, and so we can safely use Occum's razor to remove him.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

PS: Still waiting on science to come up with a test for free will.

I'm sure neuroscientists are working on it as we type.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Who said anything about the God you see in the Bible? I don't think I did recently.

I was just using it as an example of a god that exists within our universe.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Gods aren't measurable because we can't set up experiments to verify or disprove their existence.

Then how are they different to last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And last I checked Occam's Razor only serves to point what is most probably correct, not that something can't exist as a definite proof.

Occum's Razor states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', or to put in another way, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof'. That sounds like it covers the possibility that there is a god who exists outside our universe, has nothing to do with our universe (to say he created our universe is just 'god-of-the-gaps') and cannot be measured.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

There's no reason I see why some god couldn't have created the universe and is just chilling out watching what's going on, maybe to intervene someday (or has in the past but decided to take a beer break or something).

Then I assume you also don't see any reason to discount last-thursdayism, or brain-in-a-vat or the infinite amount of other things which might exist but for which we have no evidence.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, as soon as they figure out why humans have free will yet computers, robots, dogs, insects, rocks, trees, and atoms don't, get back to me.

Why do you think that humans have 'free will' and dogs don't?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

it's existence would be difficult to test for.

Again, how is this different from last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, as none of these proposals can be falsified in practical terms.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Going by the former translation given on wikipedia it seems more like it's up to the individual what's actually a simpler explanation. Clever cutting and pasting, though.

Here's some more copy-and-pasting from the same article.

'In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (although this is not always the same as simplicity)'

'Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

As I've said before, I don't even know if I exist.

Skepticism is all well and good, but when it comes to things that can not be falsified then I find it best to disregard it rather than to stew over something that has no answer, other than 5 tons of flax of course.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, other than me not believing anything has free will, I just wonder where people try to make the distinction between things having and not having free will. Why is it bacteria only behave based upon the chemical impulses going on in their cells while we have some magic ability to not be held captive to our own chemical impulses?

Snap, I don't believe in 'free will' either, although life is a lot simpler and more enjoyable if we allow ourselves the illusion that we have some sort of control over our actions.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Judgemental posts like this. So consumed with winning you compromise what you say with the way you say it.

Could you rephrase that in english perhaps.

What do you mean by winning? If by winning you mean getting everyone around to my point of view then I'm afraid you are projecting onto me. My only goal has been to present of own personal viewpoint and the reasons that have resulted in me choosing to adopt this viewpoint, and if I percieve any weaknesses or inconsistencies in other people's arguments then I point them out. Perhaps you could give an example of where I have said that my goals are any different or where I have 'compromised what I say with the way I say it', whatever that means.

If you could show where you actually offered any actual evidence for your assertations I would glady make a full and complete retraction of the post in question. As for being judgemental, I feel that if someone seems to be (knowingly or not) trying to wind people up by insulting their ethics and declaring themselves to the the only one in the right without a shred of evidence for their stace, then I feel I have the right to be judgemental.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Token

I dont understand. In almost any situation you have the free will to do whatever, I think that you are confusing the consequence to what you choose to do with your free will, with free will itself.

What do you mean by 'free will'?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The best proof we can wrestle with is this. (Ecclesiastes 3:11 releates to this)
People throughout history have been concerned with the afterlife and spiritual concepts. No atheistic culture has ever been discovered & even in our modern time, belief in such concepts has survived the most thorough mental conditioning & violent repression. The notion that the human condition has a spiritual dimension is widely accepted.

Generally on the matter of an afterlife religions have these two basic principals.
1. A persons current life and actions affect their spiritual condition before & after death.
2. There is some kind of mechanism that sorts people out on the basis of some kind of system.

In this area my religion means a type of security like insurance on a car. In the event of death I am covered. As for why I am covered by a Christian system, its founder made a statement of
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
this statement and others like it in the Bible sets Christianity apart from all other religions. This statement of exclusive direction is in stark contrast to the other major religious systems being practiced today.
The Bible offers teaching in the area of specific direction tward the afterlife that other religious systems lack. Like any good insurance policy the Christian plan for salvation leaves no room for guess work. It lays out what is covered under the deal and the ramifications of not being covered.

I'm critical of the atheist because of the denial of a God on the basis of faith without some kind of back up plan.

I assume you've never heard of the athiests' wager.

Quote:

The ability to choose what you want to do, when you want to do it.

And how do you know that we are not merely labouring under the delusion that we have free will, when in fact all of our decisions are made by forces outside of our control?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Token

If that is how you feel you should not be arguing on the side of athiests should you?

Athiesm has nothing to do with determinism vs free will.

Originally Posted by Token

If you are referring to the goverment, you are wrong their too, the goverment does not control you, at least until you do something that would put you in trouble. It is as simple as this and can branch off to more complicated situations: you have an opportunity to steal a jolly rancher from one of you friends, do you do it? or do you leave it alone?

The controls I referred to were biological and psychological in nature.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Token

You mean like teenage hormones?

I mean things like the chemicals reactions that occur in our brains.

Have a look at this for more infomation.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Because the bible tells me so. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Jeremiah 7:23, Hosea 6:6, John 14:15)

Until you can give some evidence that the bible is a valid source of truth please refrain from using it as some sort of infallible guide in any serious argument.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Token

I read a little bit of that site, which was quite interesting, I just dont see how it makes sense that every action that I make was predetermined by the chemicals and nuerotransmitters in my brain.

If not chemicals then where do are thoughts come from?

Originally Posted by Token

And I think you guys should give LordsSword a break, no one I have ever met could defend themselves against the onslaught of, like, ten intelligent, also "zealous" athiests.

I think I could handle myself fairly well agaisnt 10 intelligent, 'zealous' christians and have done so many times in the past. If you can not defend your position then you should either refrain from discussing it or abandon it.

Originally Posted by Token

Even if what he says starts to sound a really rediculous, and even though I dont agree with a thing he says, he's really smart.

I've yet to see any evidence of this.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Token

Just becuase I dont agree with his point of view does not make him any less intelligent.

It's his lack of conherant arguments that lead to the conclusion he lacks intelligence.

Originally Posted by Token

That does not mean that I dont have control over my actions.

What causes your actions? Your thoughts. And what causes your thoughts? Chemical reactions in your brain.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

How is it any different than believing in the existence of particles we haven't observed yet or haven't determined a way to observe?

Could you give an example of a particle that we can neither directly observe, or observe the effects of.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Again, even with all of that, what is "as simple as possible but no simpler" can still be up to individual interpretation. Is it simpler to believe in the whole whatnot of the laws of the nature and that jazz, or is it easier to believe in something that put everything where it is. Frankly, I find nature to be a more beautifully simple explanation that I prefer it, but I understand how someone can feel it's just too absurd to happen on its own.

Again, the use of the word simple comes from paraphrasing and only used to give a quick insight into it. Personal interpretation has nothing to do with it, either an entity is neccesary for a theory to work, or it isn't.

'Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Quote:

I guess that's where we differ a little. I enjoy talking about all the different possibilities of what could be that we may not know. After all, what fun is science if you don't question everything?

I enjoy talking about it, but I try not to let the fact that I may be a butterflies dream intrude into my life.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

How do you know you 'used' the functions of your brain, and you don't just think you did? What is this mysterious 'I' that seems to exist independantly of your brain?

Have a look at PiccloNamek's excellent post to see a good explanation of how our minds work.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

If ALL of you people promise to cut out the name calling & harsh statements, I will gather my sources and present them.

If not I can only assume that what I provide will be a platform for more ridicule.

I am showing where I am on the landscape of myriad beliefs and a course to a defined concept of virtue. This is what my religion means to me and this is what a christian is supposed to do.

Can you or anyone else here do the same?

All I can see right now is a body of people that slam ideas but present no particular source of their own (with quotes or statements) as their guide for the concept of virtue. Its easy to walk around with a hatchet and destroy things but what do you build your life on?

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

What does this mean to you?

* Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

* Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

* Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

* Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

* This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

* Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

* Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

How has humanism proven to you to be superior in its definition of virtue?

Humanism is based on things like logic and reason, rather than tradition and dogma.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I read the part about life & ethics but I have yet to experience your actions that express your commitment to such concepts. What I mean by this is the plain fact that when you see a person being abused (such as the verbal forms leveled against me) you did nothing to stop it. I saw no statement that called for a higher standard to which the other members here should strive for in the treatment of their fellow man.

If that's your definition of abuse you should toughen up. My friends and I are often far more cutting and insulting in our remarks about each other.

Also, this is the internet, who takes anything said here to heart?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Toughen up? Lets read this again-->Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

I had nothing but goodwill and tolerance when you first started posting, but your constant refusals to back up your arguments with any sort of evidence has eroded any goodwill I once had. I will be tolerant and have goodwill to people who deserve it.

If I were to debate a theist and refuse to explain any of my arguments or offer any evidence for them, and instead repeatedly trot out the same old, worn-out arguments that he has already questioned and/or dismatled then I would say that he is quite entitled to get annoyed at me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

So we have to measure up to your standards to deserve some of that good will you were talking about?

You were afforded goodwill but threw it away by being constantly infuriating and obtuse in your posts. Yes there is a standard for my goodwill and tolerance, it is not unconditional but rather depends on people showing that they deserve it. Your constant evasion of questions and repetition of past arguments has shown me that you don't presently deserve and instead I will withhold it until you give me a good reason not to.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I may never measure up to the standards of the folks here cause I can't even measure up to the standards of my God on my own merit.

The stadards of my fellow posters are much lower than the christian god. We merely ask that if you make a point then to include some logic and reason in it. We don't ask that you are perfect even though we made it impossible for you to be.

There's nowhere I can't reach.