R
Roscoe
Guest
I was quoting Hebrews 11:1 silly. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif To me it is the best and most definitive description of faith I've ever come across.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Religion Revisited?
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
- Watchers 0
I
imported_snoopy
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Please, enlighten me snoopy - how do you explain our sentience, our ability to know, our personal nature?
*waits for the behaviorist model in some form or another*
<hr></blockquote>
That I don't have an explanation for something is hardly evidence for a deity. When theists respond with 'how do you explain this or that', all you guys do is make your selves look silly. You are really grasping at straws here Roscoe.
Please, enlighten me snoopy - how do you explain our sentience, our ability to know, our personal nature?
*waits for the behaviorist model in some form or another*
<hr></blockquote>
That I don't have an explanation for something is hardly evidence for a deity. When theists respond with 'how do you explain this or that', all you guys do is make your selves look silly. You are really grasping at straws here Roscoe.
R
Roscoe
Guest
I would think that because you're so sure I'm wrong that you had put some thoughts into these issues and would have reasonable responses rather than mild ad hominem attacks. That you don't have an explanation or some sort of thought to offer other than attacks is evidence of one thing - that's for certain. I'll let you figure out what it is.
G
Guest
Guest
<font color=blue>>>I was quoting Hebrews 11:1 silly.</font color=blue>
Ummm . . . isn't that the same thing I said?
Which version of the Bible, by the way? Yours is different than either NIV or KJV.
Ummm . . . isn't that the same thing I said?
Which version of the Bible, by the way? Yours is different than either NIV or KJV.
G
Guest
Guest
You really are no different than the rest of them, you say that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong....nothing new here.
R
Roscoe
Guest
<font color=blue>Ummm . . . isn't that the same thing I said?</font color=blue>
nope... you said:
You realize that you just agreed with the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, Chapter 11, verse 1.
I thought you were implying that I had accidentally agreed with it and I was just letting you know I was quoting it.
<font color=blue>Which version of the Bible, by the way? Yours is different than either NIV or KJV. </font color=blue>
The one in my head. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif
nope... you said:
You realize that you just agreed with the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, Chapter 11, verse 1.
I thought you were implying that I had accidentally agreed with it and I was just letting you know I was quoting it.
<font color=blue>Which version of the Bible, by the way? Yours is different than either NIV or KJV. </font color=blue>
The one in my head. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif
R
Roscoe
Guest
<font color=blue>You really are no different than the rest of them, you say that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong....nothing new here. </font color=blue>
You know what I find interesting? I can engage in a discussion for pages with someone. I can write a mini essay and offer up some thought why I believe the way I do only to be met with ridicule and insults. That really doesn't bother me. But when I point out just how dishonest such responses are in a serious conversation I get responses like yours. lol You know what that's evidence of? I'll let you figure that out for yourself too.
You know what I find interesting? I can engage in a discussion for pages with someone. I can write a mini essay and offer up some thought why I believe the way I do only to be met with ridicule and insults. That really doesn't bother me. But when I point out just how dishonest such responses are in a serious conversation I get responses like yours. lol You know what that's evidence of? I'll let you figure that out for yourself too.
I
imported_snoopy
Guest
Reasonable responses to what? You aren't saying anything. That I don't have an explanation for what? What are you talking about here? I guess the best defense is a murky offence? Given that you believe that my inability to explain human intellect is evidence for a deity, your belief that my labelling that as silly is likely evidence (to you) of some sort of pretty grand conspiracy, but what we are reduced to now is that you have finally run out of illogical arguments to support your position and are now trying to turn the focus on me. You assert the deity...if you want to be intellectually honest with your self, you should have something to support that assertion.
R
Roscoe
Guest
<font color=blue>You assert the deity...if you want to be intellectually honest with your self, you should have something to support that assertion. </font color=blue>
So we come back to my original question. Explain to me how an impersonal process can produce a personal being with sentience and the ability to know things beyond itself? How can the impersonal come from the personal? If I'm going to be philosophically honest with myself and consider the possibility that there is no God who solves my problem then I have to be given an alternative. But you can't do that - all you can do is stand there and throw stones at me. So darn right I'm going to put the focus on you. If you're so absolutely certain that I'm wrong then you must surely have put some thought into why I'm wrong and have some sort of plausible explanation as to how we as humans are what we are. Put up or shut up snoop.
Now while you're thinking of another way to avoid answering the question I'll give you a brief overview of my thought process as to the problem of human behavior and what suggests and (yes, from my perspective) is evidence of.
There are three things in the human experience that lead me to the conclusion that there is a God. And not only that there is a God but that he is a God who communicates with us.
The first is morality. We as human beings are moral in nature. We desire to have some standard by which we attribute some level of right or wrong behavior. This moral nature is a concept unqiue to humans and it not present in animal behavior. It is more than instinctual and I assert this primarily because we can reason that what was once wrong is now right as well as the converse that what was once right is now wrong.
The second is our personal nature. While animals most certainly can cohabitate and some species mate for life humans have the unique inherent desire to to love and to be loved. To have friends, buds, compatriots and so on. When we fall out of love we have affairs and we feel betrayed when someone violates the bonds of the relationship. Where does this desire and ability to relate to one another come from?
The third is our ability to know. If it's there we can know it. There are countless examples of things that we did not realize were there even when they were effecting our lives on a daily basis - but through the course of time the persistence of our pursuit of knowledge has revealed them to us. Therefore if God is there then he is knowable.
With these three things in front of us we have one question: why? Why do we seek to find purpose in our lives and why do are we the way we are? And why, amongst all of nature are we so definitely unique in these attributes? You might argue that a dog is personal in nature but I guarantee you that you didn't read that in his journal or find it spelled out in paw prints on a cave wall somewhere. You arrived at that conclusion through the unique human ability to observe and draw conclusions and to reason out potential explanations. Something no other creature on the face of the planet does.
To drive home to the point - these three things are either the product of chance in which case it's not my job to explain it since I don't believe that. Or we can argue that these are evidence of a higher order to things towards which we are naturally drawn. Essentially evidence of deity.
The pivotal point in this is that it is not illogical to believe that the personal nature of man sprung from a personal source. We all agree that everything has a beginning - so unless someone can explain to me how the personal came from the impersonal then we are left to consider the possiblity that ther personal came from the personal. So if the personal came from the personal - then where did this personal nature originate from?
The evolutionist must always explain the personal in conext of origins. The religious person must do the same and it's the dynamic of religion that I"d like to touch on now. Human beings are religious in nature. Religion of any kind is present throughout history. It varies in its forms and in some instances sets up man as deity. But it is 'relgious' in its nature in that it seeks to establish some sort of authority into a system in which we exist. It is this innate desire within humans to worship something or deify something or even codify something that to me suggests a higher order.
The point in all this is that our personal nature, our moral nature, our ability to know and the consistency in human nature to establish a religion of some kind throughout all of human history provides evidence that there is a deity.
How is this evidence? You may have read recently that we have conclusively proven that there are planets out there circling circling other stars. By current estimates the number of planets that we supsected were out there and that we've conclusively proven that are out there range in the billions. Have we taken even one photograph or laid a human eye on any of these planets specifically? No - we know they are there by the analyzation of evidence that gives us every reason to believe they are there. Most notably of which is the impact of the gravitational pull that particularly large planets have on starts as they circle their respetive suns - it makes them wobble.
In my opinion human nature is evidence of something and in my opinion it is evidence of Deity.
So we come back to my original question. Explain to me how an impersonal process can produce a personal being with sentience and the ability to know things beyond itself? How can the impersonal come from the personal? If I'm going to be philosophically honest with myself and consider the possibility that there is no God who solves my problem then I have to be given an alternative. But you can't do that - all you can do is stand there and throw stones at me. So darn right I'm going to put the focus on you. If you're so absolutely certain that I'm wrong then you must surely have put some thought into why I'm wrong and have some sort of plausible explanation as to how we as humans are what we are. Put up or shut up snoop.
Now while you're thinking of another way to avoid answering the question I'll give you a brief overview of my thought process as to the problem of human behavior and what suggests and (yes, from my perspective) is evidence of.
There are three things in the human experience that lead me to the conclusion that there is a God. And not only that there is a God but that he is a God who communicates with us.
The first is morality. We as human beings are moral in nature. We desire to have some standard by which we attribute some level of right or wrong behavior. This moral nature is a concept unqiue to humans and it not present in animal behavior. It is more than instinctual and I assert this primarily because we can reason that what was once wrong is now right as well as the converse that what was once right is now wrong.
The second is our personal nature. While animals most certainly can cohabitate and some species mate for life humans have the unique inherent desire to to love and to be loved. To have friends, buds, compatriots and so on. When we fall out of love we have affairs and we feel betrayed when someone violates the bonds of the relationship. Where does this desire and ability to relate to one another come from?
The third is our ability to know. If it's there we can know it. There are countless examples of things that we did not realize were there even when they were effecting our lives on a daily basis - but through the course of time the persistence of our pursuit of knowledge has revealed them to us. Therefore if God is there then he is knowable.
With these three things in front of us we have one question: why? Why do we seek to find purpose in our lives and why do are we the way we are? And why, amongst all of nature are we so definitely unique in these attributes? You might argue that a dog is personal in nature but I guarantee you that you didn't read that in his journal or find it spelled out in paw prints on a cave wall somewhere. You arrived at that conclusion through the unique human ability to observe and draw conclusions and to reason out potential explanations. Something no other creature on the face of the planet does.
To drive home to the point - these three things are either the product of chance in which case it's not my job to explain it since I don't believe that. Or we can argue that these are evidence of a higher order to things towards which we are naturally drawn. Essentially evidence of deity.
The pivotal point in this is that it is not illogical to believe that the personal nature of man sprung from a personal source. We all agree that everything has a beginning - so unless someone can explain to me how the personal came from the impersonal then we are left to consider the possiblity that ther personal came from the personal. So if the personal came from the personal - then where did this personal nature originate from?
The evolutionist must always explain the personal in conext of origins. The religious person must do the same and it's the dynamic of religion that I"d like to touch on now. Human beings are religious in nature. Religion of any kind is present throughout history. It varies in its forms and in some instances sets up man as deity. But it is 'relgious' in its nature in that it seeks to establish some sort of authority into a system in which we exist. It is this innate desire within humans to worship something or deify something or even codify something that to me suggests a higher order.
The point in all this is that our personal nature, our moral nature, our ability to know and the consistency in human nature to establish a religion of some kind throughout all of human history provides evidence that there is a deity.
How is this evidence? You may have read recently that we have conclusively proven that there are planets out there circling circling other stars. By current estimates the number of planets that we supsected were out there and that we've conclusively proven that are out there range in the billions. Have we taken even one photograph or laid a human eye on any of these planets specifically? No - we know they are there by the analyzation of evidence that gives us every reason to believe they are there. Most notably of which is the impact of the gravitational pull that particularly large planets have on starts as they circle their respetive suns - it makes them wobble.
In my opinion human nature is evidence of something and in my opinion it is evidence of Deity.
G
Guest
Guest
You were contradicting yourself by saying the "others were wrong", yet you say we have to find our own path and that that is the right path.
All you've given us so far is that you're saying that your "faith" tells you that what you believe is correct.
I don't see how my other response was dishonest and I've already made quite a few both long and short posts in this thread.
All you've given us so far is that you're saying that your "faith" tells you that what you believe is correct.
I don't see how my other response was dishonest and I've already made quite a few both long and short posts in this thread.
G
Guest
Guest
<font color=blue>>>I thought you were implying that I had accidentally agreed with it and I was just letting you know I was quoting it. </font color=blue>
No, I was actually responding to Snoopy's post. Ergo, the "re: snoopy" in the subject line.
No, I was actually responding to Snoopy's post. Ergo, the "re: snoopy" in the subject line.
R
Roscoe
Guest
I wasn't talking about your posts being dishonest. I was talking about snoops.
R
Roscoe
Guest
lol - i'm so confused. I think I need a beer.
R
Roscoe
Guest
lol - ok - I just went back and read your post again, read the post from snoopy to which you were responding and now I get it. lol
G
Guest
Guest
*hands Roscoe a pint of Newcastle Brown*
Mind if I join you?
Mind if I join you?
R
Roscoe
Guest
<font color=blue>You were contradicting yourself by saying the "others were wrong", yet you say we have to find our own path and that that is the right path. </font color=blue>
I'm not sure where I've said this but let me clarify my stance. I believe I'm right and where people agree with me I believe they are reight. Where they disagree with me I believe they are wrong. I do believe that people have to find the path and I can't force them down it but I firmly believe there is only one correct path.
<font color=blue>All you've given us so far is that you're saying that your "faith" tells you that what you believe is correct. </font color=blue>
What exactly do you want me to give you? An admission that I feel I'm wrong and someone else is right? I do that on occasion - but I'm rarely wrong... at least not in my own mind. ;-)
I also understand that I'm not changing many if any minds by my participation in these threads - do you have the expectation that I somehow should change mine because snoop or you or somebody disagrees?
I'm not sure where I've said this but let me clarify my stance. I believe I'm right and where people agree with me I believe they are reight. Where they disagree with me I believe they are wrong. I do believe that people have to find the path and I can't force them down it but I firmly believe there is only one correct path.
<font color=blue>All you've given us so far is that you're saying that your "faith" tells you that what you believe is correct. </font color=blue>
What exactly do you want me to give you? An admission that I feel I'm wrong and someone else is right? I do that on occasion - but I'm rarely wrong... at least not in my own mind. ;-)
I also understand that I'm not changing many if any minds by my participation in these threads - do you have the expectation that I somehow should change mine because snoop or you or somebody disagrees?
R
Roscoe
Guest
You know - I actually hate the taste of all beers. I can't stand wine nor hard liquor. It all tastes bad to me... kind of stale and sour. The only thing I do like are sweet drinks like wine coolers, margaritas and the like. In other words give me spiked cool aid. ;-)
S
Shai'tan
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
me-"This makes god a creator of evil, and therefore himself evil."
Roscoe-Did God create the refrigerator and if so does that therefore make him a refrigerator too?
<hr></blockquote>
O.k. o.k., I don't need the poor sarcastic analagies of my quotes out of context.
The statement "this" means it was referring to an earlier statement.
Also, When I speak of "evil" I am speaking of action and intentions carried out over time. not an inanimate object.
Jeez quit makin me look like a bastage!
<blockquote><hr>
me-"And btw, the term satan comes from the word Shai'tan.
Shai'tan was a supposed angel of god who was created to accuse people.
People often misunderstood him to be the devil for his job given to him by "god."
Anyways, time for a few beers."
Roscoe-If you're pulling that from scripture then that's a complete perversion of what the scripture truly says. If it's from somewhere else then... that's nice.
<hr></blockquote>
Not from scripture, historical fact. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
<blockquote><hr>
PLUS, he created Oprah.
<hr></blockquote>
Hehe, thats all too true Jango. er, and that proves evil DOES exist!
me-"This makes god a creator of evil, and therefore himself evil."
Roscoe-Did God create the refrigerator and if so does that therefore make him a refrigerator too?
<hr></blockquote>
O.k. o.k., I don't need the poor sarcastic analagies of my quotes out of context.
The statement "this" means it was referring to an earlier statement.
Also, When I speak of "evil" I am speaking of action and intentions carried out over time. not an inanimate object.
Jeez quit makin me look like a bastage!
<blockquote><hr>
me-"And btw, the term satan comes from the word Shai'tan.
Shai'tan was a supposed angel of god who was created to accuse people.
People often misunderstood him to be the devil for his job given to him by "god."
Anyways, time for a few beers."
Roscoe-If you're pulling that from scripture then that's a complete perversion of what the scripture truly says. If it's from somewhere else then... that's nice.
<hr></blockquote>
Not from scripture, historical fact. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
<blockquote><hr>
PLUS, he created Oprah.
<hr></blockquote>
Hehe, thats all too true Jango. er, and that proves evil DOES exist!
A
Ampmonster
Guest
mmmmmm newcastle
C
chippac
Guest
Roscoe likes analogies.
A
Ampmonster
Guest
Appropriate quote for this discussion
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Kevin Spacey, "The Usaul Suspects"
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Kevin Spacey, "The Usaul Suspects"
C
chippac
Guest
This one came to mind...
"If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian." - Mark Twain.
"If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian." - Mark Twain.
R
Roscoe
Guest
I can't make you look like anything.
While I agree my analogy has its limitations it gets the point across. Evil is a product of our ability to choose our own way. And if Evil is not an inanimate object then I would say that evil is clearly not subject to the discussion of 'presence' or 'absence' in a purely time-based continuum kind of scenario. Unfortunately we are forced to use terms that cause us to think strictly in a time-based continuum kind of sense simply because they are most appropriate if ineffective. It is not a contradiction to say evil is the absence of God unless you are being strictly literal.
In reality very few things are evil - the things that are evil are those things that are in complete rebellion to God and his ways.
As for your 'historical fact' about Satan.... that's nice. *rolls eyes*
While I agree my analogy has its limitations it gets the point across. Evil is a product of our ability to choose our own way. And if Evil is not an inanimate object then I would say that evil is clearly not subject to the discussion of 'presence' or 'absence' in a purely time-based continuum kind of scenario. Unfortunately we are forced to use terms that cause us to think strictly in a time-based continuum kind of sense simply because they are most appropriate if ineffective. It is not a contradiction to say evil is the absence of God unless you are being strictly literal.
In reality very few things are evil - the things that are evil are those things that are in complete rebellion to God and his ways.
As for your 'historical fact' about Satan.... that's nice. *rolls eyes*
R
Roscoe
Guest
Gahndi once said 'if we ever saw a Christian act like he were supposed to act I might consider being onee'. That may not be a direct quote and Gahndi may not have even said it. But since we were throwing out quotes bashing Christianity I thought I'd join in.
C
chippac
Guest
"what's good for thre goose is good for the gandhi..." /php-bin/shared/images/icons/disturbed.gif
G
Guest
Guest
Yes thanks for the correction, I actually knew that but I always get them confused and did not proof read it like I do because of my Dyslexia. It was just a mistake on my part. Thanks /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
The knowledge of early church history by some of the self-proclaimed Christians on this forum is absolutely appalling at times.
<hr></blockquote>
Anybody know where I can buy some Troll food? Does AGWAY have some?
The knowledge of early church history by some of the self-proclaimed Christians on this forum is absolutely appalling at times.
<hr></blockquote>
Anybody know where I can buy some Troll food? Does AGWAY have some?
G
Guest
Guest
I knew it, I knew you were him. I thought you were going to some lumber camp in the NW territories?
A
Ampmonster
Guest
"This one came to mind...
"If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian."- Mark Twain. "
**
kinda. Christ was jewish. Christians are(by definition) Christ-like. Christ IS Christ, not Christ-like...if that makes sense. lol
"If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian."- Mark Twain. "
**
kinda. Christ was jewish. Christians are(by definition) Christ-like. Christ IS Christ, not Christ-like...if that makes sense. lol
C
chippac
Guest
lol ..thought everyone knew...
it was a gold mine actually, and I didnt get the job which is ok coz it was almost in the arctic then I was gonna move but that kinda fell to pieces...was a disastrous summer/fall...
it was a gold mine actually, and I didnt get the job which is ok coz it was almost in the arctic then I was gonna move but that kinda fell to pieces...was a disastrous summer/fall...
I
imported_snoopy
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Explain to me how an impersonal process can produce a personal being with sentience and the ability to know things beyond itself? How can the impersonal come from the personal?
<hr></blockquote>
I can't. I am not sure if others have theories but I am not aware of any law of nature that this violates. How did we get from single celled organizms to billions of different species living in a multitude of environments? A couple of hundred years ago we would have said that was impossible. 400 years ago some people did not get sick when epidemics hit villages. How was this possible? We did not have the tools to explain it so these people were labeled witches and killed. Now we know that often the reason was that the people were so poor they had to eat moldy bread which helped them fight disease and infection. It is human nature to attribute that which we can not currently explain to the supernatural, but history tells us that this line of thinking is flawed.
<blockquote><hr>
If I'm going to be philosophically honest with myself and consider the possibility that there is no God who solves my problem then I have to be given an alternative.
<hr></blockquote>
Why? What is so hard about saying that right now we don't have all the answers? Why can't we accept that some of those answers will come, and that some will not?
<blockquote><hr>
If you're so absolutely certain that I'm wrong then you must surely have put some thought into why I'm wrong and have some sort of plausible explanation as to how we as humans are what we are. Put up or shut up snoop.
<hr></blockquote>
This is an ever flawed argument christians use suggesting that others prove a negative...that doesn't work. It is tantamount to me saying 'Roscoe...prove to me that you are not a murderer...if you can't then you must be guilty of murder and we should lock you up'. The onus is on me to provide evidence that you are indeed a murderer...until then we must presume you haven't. And for the record, what I am absolutely certain of is not that you are wrong, but that you, and to my knowledge, every other theist in the world, has not provided even a shred of compelling evidence to substantiate a claim of a deity.
<blockquote><hr>
Now while you're thinking of another way to avoid answering the question
<hr></blockquote>
Actually I have answered this a couple of times now...my answer is that I do not know why exactly we are the way we are. I can postulate but I am not going to adopt or create supernatural explanations just so I don't have to say 'I don't know'.
<blockquote><hr>
The first is morality. We as human beings are moral in nature. We desire to have some standard by which we attribute some level of right or wrong behavior. This moral nature is a concept unqiue to humans and it not present in animal behavior. It is more than instinctual and I assert this primarily because we can reason that what was once wrong is now right as well as the converse that what was once right is now wrong.
<hr></blockquote>
Why do you say that morality is unique to humans? Using a definition of right being good for the species and wrong being bad for the species, you see many variations of bahaviour codes in different animal species. Some animals will kill the offspring of another while others raise the young as a pack. If you accept evolution and the concept of progressively more common ancestors, you can see how these bahaviours have changed over time. We humans are the ultimate pack animal and can not survive without the combined effort of many of our counterparts. Many of the 'morals' we cling to are essential to our survival, and those morals (as you have observed) change over time, but I think that has less to do with a broadening of our intellect and more to do with current circumstance. Let us say that there is some disaster like an asteroid hit. We get 3 or 4 years of nuclear winter and society is decimated. The ruling class starves to death because it can't take care of itself and anarchy prevails. Do you think those 'past morals' that we look down upon today would stop us from reverting back to a small tribe survival of the fittest mentality?
<blockquote><hr>
The second is our personal nature. While animals most certainly can cohabitate and some species mate for life humans have the unique inherent desire to to love and to be loved. To have friends, buds, compatriots and so on. When we fall out of love we have affairs and we feel betrayed when someone violates the bonds of the relationship. Where does this desire and ability to relate to one another come from?
<hr></blockquote>
Until recently we had 4 cats and 4 dogs (down to 3 of each), and while I can't speak about whether they feel love, their personalities certainly suggested many of the behaviours and emotions you speak of. Some get along well with certain of the others...others don't. There are acts of jealousy, vindictive retaliation, compassion, etc. And as far as love goes, try and define it and you will come up with many instinctual labels. Let's assume that there are some things on an emotional level that humans experience and other animals do not (and I am sure there are). Why does this indicate something higher than humanity? An amoeba and a dog are far separated in intellect, emotion, outside awareness, etc. but this difference does not prove (does not even suggest) something higher than the dog does it?
<blockquote><hr>
The third is our ability to know. If it's there we can know it. There are countless examples of things that we did not realize were there even when they were effecting our lives on a daily basis - but through the course of time the persistence of our pursuit of knowledge has revealed them to us. Therefore if God is there then he is knowable.
<hr></blockquote>
Maybe, although it is perhaps arrogant to think that just because we can know things that are within the realm of our understanding, that we can also know things that are outside of it. The first part of what you say backs up my contention that what we can't explain right now may be explained later on.
<blockquote><hr>
Why do we seek to find purpose in our lives and why do are we the way we are?
<hr></blockquote>
I don't know...because we can?
<blockquote><hr>
You arrived at that conclusion through the unique human ability to observe and draw conclusions and to reason out potential explanations. Something no other creature on the face of the planet does.
<hr></blockquote>
Though I think you are likely right, how do we know this to be true? Much is said about the potential intellect of dolphins...do we know for sure that they do not observe, draw conslusions, and reason? Do we know that in the next 4 billion years absolutely no other creature will develop these or even higher abilities? We have been here as a species for a couple hundred thousand years...again it is arrogant (and we are an arrogant unicentrical species) to think that we are then end all and the be all.
<blockquote><hr>
Or we can argue that these are evidence of a higher order to things towards which we are naturally drawn. Essentially evidence of deity.
<hr></blockquote>
Why only those two options? And if a higher order, why a deity? Chaos theory finds order in a lot of unlikely places...perhaps just as atoms interact with each other in intricate but defined ways there is a bigger natural macro order on a universal scale. Perhaps there are physical laws that we are not yet aware of that made our evolution a given. You are back to "I can't explain so there must be a supernatural explanation' but not having an explanation for something is never evidence for something else.
<blockquote><hr>
The pivotal point in this is that it is not illogical to believe that the personal nature of man sprung from a personal source.
<hr></blockquote>
Again, the lack of an explanation is never a logically sound premise for any arguement. If A then B. A therefore B. The if then premise has to be sound and valid to conclude B...until then the argument is not logically sound.
<blockquote><hr>
No - we know they are there by the analyzation of evidence
<hr></blockquote>
Physical observable evidence. If the star is wobbly it must be affected by a gravitational force...that is a sound premise (could be proven to be wrong but it is sound and can be demonstrated mathematically).
Explain to me how an impersonal process can produce a personal being with sentience and the ability to know things beyond itself? How can the impersonal come from the personal?
<hr></blockquote>
I can't. I am not sure if others have theories but I am not aware of any law of nature that this violates. How did we get from single celled organizms to billions of different species living in a multitude of environments? A couple of hundred years ago we would have said that was impossible. 400 years ago some people did not get sick when epidemics hit villages. How was this possible? We did not have the tools to explain it so these people were labeled witches and killed. Now we know that often the reason was that the people were so poor they had to eat moldy bread which helped them fight disease and infection. It is human nature to attribute that which we can not currently explain to the supernatural, but history tells us that this line of thinking is flawed.
<blockquote><hr>
If I'm going to be philosophically honest with myself and consider the possibility that there is no God who solves my problem then I have to be given an alternative.
<hr></blockquote>
Why? What is so hard about saying that right now we don't have all the answers? Why can't we accept that some of those answers will come, and that some will not?
<blockquote><hr>
If you're so absolutely certain that I'm wrong then you must surely have put some thought into why I'm wrong and have some sort of plausible explanation as to how we as humans are what we are. Put up or shut up snoop.
<hr></blockquote>
This is an ever flawed argument christians use suggesting that others prove a negative...that doesn't work. It is tantamount to me saying 'Roscoe...prove to me that you are not a murderer...if you can't then you must be guilty of murder and we should lock you up'. The onus is on me to provide evidence that you are indeed a murderer...until then we must presume you haven't. And for the record, what I am absolutely certain of is not that you are wrong, but that you, and to my knowledge, every other theist in the world, has not provided even a shred of compelling evidence to substantiate a claim of a deity.
<blockquote><hr>
Now while you're thinking of another way to avoid answering the question
<hr></blockquote>
Actually I have answered this a couple of times now...my answer is that I do not know why exactly we are the way we are. I can postulate but I am not going to adopt or create supernatural explanations just so I don't have to say 'I don't know'.
<blockquote><hr>
The first is morality. We as human beings are moral in nature. We desire to have some standard by which we attribute some level of right or wrong behavior. This moral nature is a concept unqiue to humans and it not present in animal behavior. It is more than instinctual and I assert this primarily because we can reason that what was once wrong is now right as well as the converse that what was once right is now wrong.
<hr></blockquote>
Why do you say that morality is unique to humans? Using a definition of right being good for the species and wrong being bad for the species, you see many variations of bahaviour codes in different animal species. Some animals will kill the offspring of another while others raise the young as a pack. If you accept evolution and the concept of progressively more common ancestors, you can see how these bahaviours have changed over time. We humans are the ultimate pack animal and can not survive without the combined effort of many of our counterparts. Many of the 'morals' we cling to are essential to our survival, and those morals (as you have observed) change over time, but I think that has less to do with a broadening of our intellect and more to do with current circumstance. Let us say that there is some disaster like an asteroid hit. We get 3 or 4 years of nuclear winter and society is decimated. The ruling class starves to death because it can't take care of itself and anarchy prevails. Do you think those 'past morals' that we look down upon today would stop us from reverting back to a small tribe survival of the fittest mentality?
<blockquote><hr>
The second is our personal nature. While animals most certainly can cohabitate and some species mate for life humans have the unique inherent desire to to love and to be loved. To have friends, buds, compatriots and so on. When we fall out of love we have affairs and we feel betrayed when someone violates the bonds of the relationship. Where does this desire and ability to relate to one another come from?
<hr></blockquote>
Until recently we had 4 cats and 4 dogs (down to 3 of each), and while I can't speak about whether they feel love, their personalities certainly suggested many of the behaviours and emotions you speak of. Some get along well with certain of the others...others don't. There are acts of jealousy, vindictive retaliation, compassion, etc. And as far as love goes, try and define it and you will come up with many instinctual labels. Let's assume that there are some things on an emotional level that humans experience and other animals do not (and I am sure there are). Why does this indicate something higher than humanity? An amoeba and a dog are far separated in intellect, emotion, outside awareness, etc. but this difference does not prove (does not even suggest) something higher than the dog does it?
<blockquote><hr>
The third is our ability to know. If it's there we can know it. There are countless examples of things that we did not realize were there even when they were effecting our lives on a daily basis - but through the course of time the persistence of our pursuit of knowledge has revealed them to us. Therefore if God is there then he is knowable.
<hr></blockquote>
Maybe, although it is perhaps arrogant to think that just because we can know things that are within the realm of our understanding, that we can also know things that are outside of it. The first part of what you say backs up my contention that what we can't explain right now may be explained later on.
<blockquote><hr>
Why do we seek to find purpose in our lives and why do are we the way we are?
<hr></blockquote>
I don't know...because we can?
<blockquote><hr>
You arrived at that conclusion through the unique human ability to observe and draw conclusions and to reason out potential explanations. Something no other creature on the face of the planet does.
<hr></blockquote>
Though I think you are likely right, how do we know this to be true? Much is said about the potential intellect of dolphins...do we know for sure that they do not observe, draw conslusions, and reason? Do we know that in the next 4 billion years absolutely no other creature will develop these or even higher abilities? We have been here as a species for a couple hundred thousand years...again it is arrogant (and we are an arrogant unicentrical species) to think that we are then end all and the be all.
<blockquote><hr>
Or we can argue that these are evidence of a higher order to things towards which we are naturally drawn. Essentially evidence of deity.
<hr></blockquote>
Why only those two options? And if a higher order, why a deity? Chaos theory finds order in a lot of unlikely places...perhaps just as atoms interact with each other in intricate but defined ways there is a bigger natural macro order on a universal scale. Perhaps there are physical laws that we are not yet aware of that made our evolution a given. You are back to "I can't explain so there must be a supernatural explanation' but not having an explanation for something is never evidence for something else.
<blockquote><hr>
The pivotal point in this is that it is not illogical to believe that the personal nature of man sprung from a personal source.
<hr></blockquote>
Again, the lack of an explanation is never a logically sound premise for any arguement. If A then B. A therefore B. The if then premise has to be sound and valid to conclude B...until then the argument is not logically sound.
<blockquote><hr>
No - we know they are there by the analyzation of evidence
<hr></blockquote>
Physical observable evidence. If the star is wobbly it must be affected by a gravitational force...that is a sound premise (could be proven to be wrong but it is sound and can be demonstrated mathematically).
I
imported_JagdWulfe
Guest
"Because in time-space continuum in which we exist the conclusion could not have existed unless the events actually took place. Otherwise the decision would be up to God and not up to you to accept or reject him. "
So in effect the end times may never occur and revelations is all the work of a delusion man?
"You go to hell for the exact opposite. "
Agreed I do remember something to that extent written in the bible but sunday christians and the ultra-rabid ones do not see that.
"lol - i love the assertions people make in these posts..."
How is God not vain, he lords over humans as a Human does animals. He demands worship or suffer the pain of hell. That is not the work of a creature that is supposed to love you. That is no better than me taking my son who turns out to be a teen malcontent and setting him on fire as punishment for not obeying me. Granted I simplified it alot but I am sure you understand the what I am trying to say.
"Baptism has nothing to do with it. When peopl tell you that tell them I say they're wrong. That will fix them. ;-) "
Depends on your particular sect of christianity. I know RCs definately feel that way since they tried to drum that into our heads in school.
So in effect the end times may never occur and revelations is all the work of a delusion man?
"You go to hell for the exact opposite. "
Agreed I do remember something to that extent written in the bible but sunday christians and the ultra-rabid ones do not see that.
"lol - i love the assertions people make in these posts..."
How is God not vain, he lords over humans as a Human does animals. He demands worship or suffer the pain of hell. That is not the work of a creature that is supposed to love you. That is no better than me taking my son who turns out to be a teen malcontent and setting him on fire as punishment for not obeying me. Granted I simplified it alot but I am sure you understand the what I am trying to say.
"Baptism has nothing to do with it. When peopl tell you that tell them I say they're wrong. That will fix them. ;-) "
Depends on your particular sect of christianity. I know RCs definately feel that way since they tried to drum that into our heads in school.
I
imported_JagdWulfe
Guest
"The first is morality"
Morality is subject to the individual not the masses. Some people think it is alright to go and do as they please. While others live by a strick set of rules. Most of 10 commandments are more common sense than anything else. I say this because for humans to have gotten this far we needed to develop some common sense rules to keep ourselves from tearing each other apart.
"The second is our personal nature."
Animals love also, my Akita when I was home would not let me out of his sight for the first few hours. Also apes and wolves have been known to mourn the loss of a pack member.
Really not sure to answer number 3 to be honest
Morality is subject to the individual not the masses. Some people think it is alright to go and do as they please. While others live by a strick set of rules. Most of 10 commandments are more common sense than anything else. I say this because for humans to have gotten this far we needed to develop some common sense rules to keep ourselves from tearing each other apart.
"The second is our personal nature."
Animals love also, my Akita when I was home would not let me out of his sight for the first few hours. Also apes and wolves have been known to mourn the loss of a pack member.
Really not sure to answer number 3 to be honest
L
Lady from Hell
Guest
I've just got one thing to say this time...
<font color=red>Who are we to question God?</font color=red>
<font color=red>Who are we to question God?</font color=red>
I
imported_JagdWulfe
Guest
"Who are we to question God? "
Simple I question the existance of a creature that no verifiable proof of it's presence.
Simple I question the existance of a creature that no verifiable proof of it's presence.
L
Lady from Hell
Guest
Ok, ok... just one more thing. Just a stickler for grammer. Just want to correct a word that you misspelled.
<blockquote><hr>
creature
<hr></blockquote>
creator
ok, done /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif
<blockquote><hr>
creature
<hr></blockquote>
creator
ok, done /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif
C
chippac
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Who are we to question God?
<hr></blockquote>
Which ones?
Who are we to question God?
<hr></blockquote>
Which ones?
I
imported_JagdWulfe
Guest
"creator "
LOL I will acknowledge it as a creator rather than creature when my questions regarding it are finally answered and proof of it's existance are revealed.
LOL I will acknowledge it as a creator rather than creature when my questions regarding it are finally answered and proof of it's existance are revealed.
G
Guest
Guest
I used to have some Miners from up there go on a Trip in the Resort I was a Chef in. Nice guys but a bit rough thats for sure.
L
Lady from Hell
Guest
Hey, Jag, this has been bugging me...
<blockquote><hr>
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
<hr></blockquote>
What in the hell does that mean? PM me if it goes against ROC. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
<blockquote><hr>
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
<hr></blockquote>
What in the hell does that mean? PM me if it goes against ROC. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
L
Lady from Hell
Guest
"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
"In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."
- The Call of Cthulhu
That from the song, book or what?
"In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."
- The Call of Cthulhu
That from the song, book or what?
L
Lonegamer
Guest
Actually the first post wasn't directed at you, there were a few posters that was directed at. Religion threads are really interesting to read until these certain people come, then it becomes a debate rather than a discussion. Discussions are more fun than debates (unless the debate is everyone versus a stupid person, those are fun to watch). They are essentially the same thing, the difference is in a discussion people will explain their opinions, like a flower opening up in a field. A debate is like a bunch of flowers leaving their buds closed and start whapping at each other. Damn I love the visual that puts in my mind.
I
imported_snoopy
Guest
So in a discussion in a thread like this...everyone states their side and then what? Moves on and the thread gets abandoned after 15 posts?
I
imported_JagdWulfe
Guest
"That from the song, book or what? "
It is from a book based on a religon older than Christianity.
It is from a book based on a religon older than Christianity.
L
Lonegamer
Guest
*starts headbutting Snoopy*
I
imported_snoopy
Guest
Does that mean you won't answer my question?
R
Roscoe
Guest
Does that mean you won't answer mine?
I
imported_snoopy
Guest
Which one? My last post addressed all your issues I think.
G
Guest
Guest
[Faith is very much about knowing
<hr></blockquote>
Faith is about blindly believing, while not having any evidence whatsoever to base the belief on.
<blockquote><hr>
as opposed to blindly accepting.
<hr></blockquote> Faith IS BLINDLY accepting! What the hell??
Too contradictory of a post IMO, and extremely bass-akwards...
Were you agreeeing with me??
<hr></blockquote>
Faith is about blindly believing, while not having any evidence whatsoever to base the belief on.
<blockquote><hr>
as opposed to blindly accepting.
<hr></blockquote> Faith IS BLINDLY accepting! What the hell??
Too contradictory of a post IMO, and extremely bass-akwards...
Were you agreeeing with me??
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
The point in all this is that our personal nature, our moral nature, our ability to know and the consistency in human nature to establish a religion of some kind throughout all of human history provides evidence that there is a deity.
<hr></blockquote>
Please say you're joking! Our humanistic endeavour to establish some type of religion throughout our history provides evidence that there MUST be some sorty of diety?
You have to be kidding! This argument you present only serves to refute itself in that humans are creatures that NEED the belief in some sort of diety!
<blockquote><hr>
Our moral nature,
<hr></blockquote>
What the hell is moral about us that we need a diety to maintain it?? Wow...
I'd call this need "Immoral", as we can only be good to eachother with the belief in an afterlife that is based on how good we were to eachother. This belief in an afterlfe has only proven that we will kill eachother for whatever righteous reason our belief structure has provided our simple minds...
The point in all this is that our personal nature, our moral nature, our ability to know and the consistency in human nature to establish a religion of some kind throughout all of human history provides evidence that there is a deity.
<hr></blockquote>
Please say you're joking! Our humanistic endeavour to establish some type of religion throughout our history provides evidence that there MUST be some sorty of diety?
You have to be kidding! This argument you present only serves to refute itself in that humans are creatures that NEED the belief in some sort of diety!
<blockquote><hr>
Our moral nature,
<hr></blockquote>
What the hell is moral about us that we need a diety to maintain it?? Wow...
I'd call this need "Immoral", as we can only be good to eachother with the belief in an afterlife that is based on how good we were to eachother. This belief in an afterlfe has only proven that we will kill eachother for whatever righteous reason our belief structure has provided our simple minds...