Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-13-2008, 05:05 AM
Mr. Vandemar

Quote:

That proves beyond any question that science requires no faith

It most certainly does not!

You have faith in reason and your own intellect.

Quote:

The real world I inhabit allows the science I use 24 hours a day to work the same way every day, so until that changes, I'm not about to.

Quote:

How is it then that those of us who worship the science-god change our beliefs so often? Although he couldn't point to any specific examples, islandclimber did point out that scientific theories often arise and are later changed or debunked.

Do I even need to point out the obvious contradiction here? Please explain. You've acknowledged that science changes often, and yet you say that this science works 24 hours a day, everyday. What what?
10-13-2008, 08:20 AM
Pendragon

Dear Doug and The Atheist:

We probably have a lot less to argue about than you think. If we accept that each of us is comfortable where we are. then that settles that. I would that all were believers in God, but I cannot force folks to see it my way, and perhaps I would be wrong to even try.

Ours is a world of wonder, of extremes and minutiae. We are the blind men with the elephant, sometimes partially in the right, but missing a large portion of the picture, which we fill in with our own or others observations.

God Bless

Pen
10-13-2008, 08:25 AM
Wintermute

Hi Pen,

Well said. Have a great week.

Doug

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

It most certainly does not!
Do I even need to point out the obvious contradiction here? Please explain. You've acknowledged that science changes often, and yet you say that this science works 24 hours a day, everyday. What what?

Mr. Vandemar! The science changes constantly--that's a good thing! The method stays the same--generate a theory based on an observation. Test the theory through experimentation. If the experiment contradicts the theory, revise the theory. If not, make another experiment. See the difference?

For example:

Observation: The sky is blue.
Theory #1: The sky is blue because there is blue stuff in the sky.
Experiment: Go get some sky and look at it.
Results: No blue Stuff, Theory #1 in the trash can
Theory #2: The sky is blue because other colors are filtered out.
And on . . . .

The method stays the same. The theories change with the evidence. Simple.

Blessings,
Doug
10-13-2008, 09:48 AM
absurda

I think some people who hear voices in their heads are not treated as mentally ill, only those whose actions, which are driven by those voices, hurt others or themselves. And religious people usually don't harm anyone.
10-13-2008, 11:29 AM
JCamilo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

It most certainly does not!
You have faith in reason and your own intellect.

That is manipulating the meaning of faith a lot. Faith, so you can compare with religious faith, is trust or belief without the need of evidence. A human certainly trust his intellect because he consider the evidences of his capacity to think. (Plus it is too simplistic even to use this argument, anyways).
As Reason, that thing was defined and evidenced by Philosophy, Science does not uphold Reason because they see no evidence of it is use, rather otherwise.

If I was a religious individual I would not like to see Faith reduced to trust on objects or concepts. It is like reducing God to a fork.
10-13-2008, 02:51 PM
dzebra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Observation: The sky is blue.
Theory #1: The sky is blue because there is blue stuff in the sky.
Experiment: Go get some sky and look at it.
Results: No blue Stuff, Theory #1 in the trash can
Theory #2: The sky is blue because other colors are filtered out.
And on . . . .

The method stays the same. The theories change with the evidence. Simple.

The theories are guesses based on things that are observed. The observations are true, the theories are not always true.

Scientific theories are dangerous because they propose to answer the entire reason why something occurs. I also think that the observations have a chance of being a little misguided.

For instance, with the observation that "the sky is blue," the mystery is out in the sky. Suppose the observation was described "when I look up into the sky, my mind tells me I see blue." That allows the mystery to be either in the sky or in the mind, or even in the eyes, or the way the head is tilted.

I think that observations made by humans can miss things that are important to what was seen, then the theories are guesses based on things that may only play a minor role in causing the occurrence.

If scientists knew everything, and took all of existence into account when making their guesses, then scientific theories would be more reliable. As things stand, they are little more than guesses by humans with an incomplete understanding of things.
10-13-2008, 03:20 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

The theories are guesses based on things that are observed.

"Guess" is not right. A scientist will develop a hypothesis based on observations, then hone it to theory by further observation and testing. Guessing doesn't come into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

Scientific theories are dangerous because they propose to answer the entire reason why something occurs.

How is that dangerous?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

I also think that the observations have a chance of being a little misguided.

They certainly do, which is why replication is so important to science. Real science includes replicability, thus ensuring consistency. Misguided observations are quickly noticed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

For instance, with the observation that "the sky is blue," the mystery is out in the sky. Suppose the observation was described "when I look up into the sky, my mind tells me I see blue." That allows the mystery to be either in the sky or in the mind, or even in the eyes, or the way the head is tilted.

Fortunately, scientists don't work that way. If you want to perpetuate mystery in your life, why not choose some real mysteries, like the beginnings of the universe and subatomic theory?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

I think that observations made by humans can miss things that are important to what was seen, then the theories are guesses based on things that may only play a minor role in causing the occurrence.

That's easy - you're just wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

If scientists knew everything, and took all of existence into account when making their guesses, then scientific theories would be more reliable. As things stand, they are little more than guesses by humans with an incomplete understanding of things.

Nope, this is completely wrong. Pythagoras' method of comuting the length of the hypotenuse doesn't need to use quantum mechanics to ensure it's right. If things worked as you suggest, the wheel would never have been invented because quantum mechanics may change the value of pi. We'd still be living in caves and hunting animals with branches as weapons.

The reliability of science is displayed daily when every time you turn your computer on, it works exactly the same way every time.

You clearly have no understanding of science and how it works, which is no problem at all, but it means that you really ought not to come in and try to use your view of it as having any authority whatsoever.
10-13-2008, 03:34 PM
SleepyWitch

I haven't read all of this thread, so I hope I'm not bringing up a question that's already been asked:
do most religious people actually claim to hear the voice of God/ Satan/ demons/ angels/ etc. and follow their commands? I don't know any fundamentalists myself, but some of my friends are Christians at any rate and none of them ever talks about hearing voices etc. Maybe they feel some communion with God or think he can hear them when they pray, but I don't think any of them ever heard voices. So does this article talk about your average believer or only people who claim to have had an epiphany or vision or something?
What about when a non-religious person ponders some problem or dilemma and "hears" their own "voice" in their head, i.e. when they are actively thinking? Would you call that hearing voices? Now what if a religious person does the same, only that for them God is part of the equation, as in "What would the Bible/ Jesus/ God/ Allah/ .... say about this moral problem?". They'd then probably think of some answer based on their knowledge of the bible etc and would "hear" an answer. but that's just your average process of thinking isn't it, only they included religious considerations in their line of argument.
So, does this article talk about "normal" religious people or only those who had unusual religious experiences?
10-13-2008, 05:03 PM
Wintermute

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

So, does this article talk about "normal" religious people or only those who had unusual religious experiences?

Hi Sleepy,

I'm in Georgia (US). Currently I'm sitting in my office in the IT department of a large manufacturing firm. I am within 'hollering' distance of three people, friends, who claim to have heard the voice of God talking to them--different voice than their own thoughts. One is female and she says her 'voice' is male. I bet if you ask the specific question, you'd find more folks than you think who actually 'hear' God's voice.

Being agnostic, this kinda bothers me. All it would take would be one little whisper and I'd be down off this fence in a microsecond.

I tend to think your explanation makes much more sense. But I could be wrong.

Peace,
Doug
10-13-2008, 05:36 PM
dzebra

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

"Guess" is not right. A scientist will develop a hypothesis based on observations, then hone it to theory by further observation and testing. Guessing doesn't come into it.

If it's not known, then it's a guess. A hypothesis is a suggested solution, an educated guess, which is a guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

How is that dangerous?

It is dangerous because proposing to know the entire reason that something happens is suggesting that one has absolute knowledge. No one does. I see untruths as dangerous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's easy - you're just wrong.

So human observations never miss anything important? Don't be silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nope, this is completely wrong.

If scientists knew everything, they would equally or less reliable?
Humans have a complete understanding of things?
Hypotheses are known truths?

The answer to all of those is "no." Those were all the claims I made. Therefore that is not completely wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If things worked as you suggest, the wheel would never have been invented because quantum mechanics may change the value of pi. We'd still be living in caves and hunting animals with branches as weapons.

I disagree, and I think it is because of a misunderstanding of what I am suggesting. I don't doubt the ability of science to reproduce results. I doubt the ability of science to come up with reasons why things are as they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The reliability of science is displayed daily when every time you turn your computer on, it works exactly the same way every time.

Unless it crashes.
10-13-2008, 05:48 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

If it's not known, then it's a guess. A hypothesis is a suggested solution, an educated guess, which is a guess.

You're still wrong, but I'm happy to leave it there and agree to differ as the subject has returned to the OP which is a lot more interesting anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzebra

Unless it crashes.

Yes, well that was so obvious and irrelevant that I didn't bother to add it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wintermute

I'm in Georgia (US). Currently I'm sitting in my office in the IT department of a large manufacturing firm. I am within 'hollering' distance of three people, friends, who claim to have heard the voice of God talking to them--different voice than their own thoughts. One is female and she says her 'voice' is male. I bet if you ask the specific question, you'd find more folks than you think who actually 'hear' God's voice.

Being agnostic, this kinda bothers me. All it would take would be one little whisper and I'd be down off this fence in a microsecond.

Isn't it odd that so many people in USA claim to hear god but so few elsewhere? Have you asked your friends whether their god speaks with an American accent?
10-13-2008, 06:50 PM
Pendragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Isn't it odd that so many people in USA claim to hear god but so few elsewhere? Have you asked your friends whether their god speaks with an American accent?

Many in the Muslim world apparently hear from God as well, as do many others.

A good question would be: Why would God talk to me in a voice I couldn't understand?

I myself know so few foreign phrases that if we all didn't use English, I would never make it on this forum. Not that I couldn't learn or be taught to understand other languages.

But if God is all-powerful, wouldn't He know my very accent as well as language? I wouldn't expect God to speak to me in say, Bantu. :)
10-13-2008, 07:03 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Many in the Muslim world apparently hear from God as well, as do many others.

True, but since I don't even know any muslims, I was meaning christians. A much larger percentage of christians in USA claim to have a "personal relationship" with a god than in almost all other European-dominated (ethnically speaking) countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendragon

A good question would be: Why would God talk to me in a voice I couldn't understand?

Can you not understand Canadian, English, Scottish, Australian and New Zealanders speaking English? I can understand using the same language, but you're saying that a Texan will hear god in a different accent to a New York christian? (assuming there are such things! :D)
10-13-2008, 10:48 PM
JCamilo

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're still wrong, but I'm happy to leave it there and agree to differ as the subject has returned to the OP which is a lot more interesting anyway.

Don't it is dangerous. I went to a doctor and he told me I had diabetis after all exams, but I told him that would prefer the following answer:
You may have diabets, but you paid for all exams for nothing,because it is dangerous to know so I give you the possibility of a flu.
So, do not leave, it may sound that you are rude and full of yourself because as it seems, not knowing nothing is reason enough to doubt from those who spent 40 years of their life working hard to know a little.
10-14-2008, 02:51 AM
SleepyWitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Hi Sleepy,

I'm in Georgia (US). Currently I'm sitting in my office in the IT department of a large manufacturing firm. I am within 'hollering' distance of three people, friends, who claim to have heard the voice of God talking to them--different voice than their own thoughts. One is female and she says her 'voice' is male. I bet if you ask the specific question, you'd find more folks than you think who actually 'hear' God's voice.

that's a good idea, I'll give it a try. but I tend to think religious people in the U.S. are more "extreme" on average than over here, so it may take me longer to find someone willing to admit that they here voices (other than their own).
on the other hand, maybe some religious people do not hear strange voices but pretend they do, because they believe this is what's supposed to be happening when you are a believer and don't won't anyone to think that God does not talk to them.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page