Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6501 - 6520 of total 22398 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
May 28, 2012 - 12:48pm PT
My hypothesis is that WBraun is not sure about that, he's just pretending.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
May 28, 2012 - 12:50pm PT
You said . . .

Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost

May 28, 2012 - 09:33am PT
Hey Malemute
are we long lost brothers??
You are one of my many brothers & sisters.

Reason #1 to reject Christianity:
God does not answer prayer.




Wrong.

GOD doesn't answer all prayers. They have to be in-line with his will.

Examples: If you pray for a million dollars, that more than likely isn't according to GOD's will. You probably want it out of greed. GOD weighs the heart. He knows our real intentions.

Let's say you're an atheist. You are about to take the big ride to the sky while soloing and are in a desperate life and death situation. And on the spot you call out to GOD having no one else to turn to and ask GOD to save you from certain death. He answers those prayers. He let's you know that he is there. He saves you. But rather than come to GOD and ask him into your life, you go on your merry way and chalk it up to your will to survive and then ignore GOD again.

GOD answers prayers and will do according to his will and save you. Will you be faithful to your side of the bargain?
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
May 28, 2012 - 12:52pm PT
What an idiot, the one thing we know is that we don't know. That's why the reasonable question! That's why this thread exists.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 28, 2012 - 12:53pm PT
God is imaginary.
God is a concept.
God cannot answer prayer because God exists only in the minds of people.

Reason #2 to reject Christianity when choosing a religion:
God doesn't answer anybody's prayers.
Scientific studies have show prayer is not answered.

In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/opinion/11lawrence.html?_r=1&ex=1302408000&en=643ff6eac0f51086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
WBraun

climber
May 28, 2012 - 12:54pm PT
The one thing we know is that we don't know.

No .... You don't know.

Speaking for every single person on this planet is pure speculation and projection.

Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
May 28, 2012 - 12:57pm PT
what is your criteria for deciding which religion is correct?

I don't have, have never had, and will never have any criteria for deciding
which religion is "correct". My mind doesn't work that way, my
anthropology training sure doesn't look at it that way, people in Asia don't
look at it that way and most of the Christians I know don't look at it that
way either. Each religion has its own unique insights.

Science and its objectivity will continue to motor
on just fine. Pull up a chair, just watch and see. ;)

I have no doubt that it will and I am equally sure that Christianity and other
religions will as well. And if the earth goes through the much predicted peak oil
and climate change crisis, religion will boom as never before.

And for those "Christians" who do not believe this account (or these doctrines) literally, they are not then actually authentic to their traditional theology, now are they? Such "Christians" would be supporting an absolutely
hollow if not gutted theology so in the face of reality in the 21st century
what good is it? or what good would it be to continue to support it?


And then there are the atheists telling the Christians what they must believe
to be "authentic"!. LOL ! Religion is about symbol systems and metaphors.
Religions also change over time or they're replaced by others. Only
the fundamentalists think that scripture has to be interpreted literally once
and for all time. Most Christians think that fundamentalism represents a
heresy.

what good would it be to continue to support it?

For one thing you'll save on your taxes by not having to fund the
government to to pay for all the social welfare, educational, and health
projects Christianity funds. There are fewer people on the streets ranging
from the hungry and homeless to the mischief making teenagers thanks
to church programs.

There are wonderful concerts every year and cultural programs, and there
is a lot of fellowship at church socials and very few DUI's driving home from
them. They welcome new members of the human race, marry others, and
bury the dead, providing support and structure along the way. They counsel
and help with depression and suicide prevention. And the list goes on.

Until atheism can provide a similarly rewarding structure for people, the
church has no competition from them, regardless of how logical or illogical
their religious beliefs are.
WBraun

climber
May 28, 2012 - 01:00pm PT
The dog say:

In a large and much touted scientific study,

Prayer is not limited for asking for material gains.

In actually it is frowned upon to pray for material gain.

Your so called scientific study is defective and incomplete ......
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
May 28, 2012 - 01:03pm PT
We do know.

People have left this physical plain, and physical body and have gone to the presence of GOD in a near death situation and have come back to tell us about it. They have indeed broken through to the other side and have come back to tell us about it. They have described the entire experiences and they are often very much similar in other-worldly descriptions.

You choose not to believe them.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 28, 2012 - 01:04pm PT
Largo, are you stating that vacuum space is empty of energy?
-

What I'm trying to do is borrow scientific language that most people use and know to give some notion about how the mind works. This is not meant to be exact but to just give some flavor or what it going on. I vector this stuff off my friends at Caltec but I always get something screwed up but if you can grasp things in a general way then maybe it will help. It is not meant to be a proof or a hypothesis. But it also not this:

"They believe what they do based on thier best explanations. That may include explanations of mysticism or mythology which offer the best explanation in the absence of testable and repeatable hypothesis."

This implies an understanding based on the discursive mind or theory, whereas what I am saying is something based on direct experience quite different than what Ed is suggesting - which is a summation of the CONTENT of experience, of that which you can measure and so on.


Anyhow, we read in QFT that vacuum energy is an underlying background energy existing in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). So here we have a phenomenon (with a proper name) which is non-material. There might be edges to the fields that exist within this vacuum space but the space itself has no edges. Also, energy or stuff/objects are NOT located "in" this space but, rather, "have a spatial extent." Seen this way, empty space loses all meaning as a thing.

Now the interesting thing about raw awareness is that it is a kind of field
but seems to be more like the non-thing of vacuum space than a quantum field, because awareness doesn't bend to the qualia with the most gravity, you attention bends. If a lion jumps into your field of awareness, that lion has so much gravity it is virtually a black hole and your attention will literally be fused with said cat and cannot possibly escape to other thoughts and so forth. That means that attention in some fundamental way has the same properties as a particle ("spin," "polarization," et al).
But most of thus stuff cancels each other out leaving the field/mind empty in the literal sense of the word.

Of course this doesn't make perfect sense because it is used metaphorically. But the basics are just these:

Your mind, as you experience it, is basically a non-thing with infinite extension. Only your sense organs are limited in how far they can perceive. Any qualia can potentially enter your mind with no resistance. Getting past the various fields of personality and so forth, right down to the no-thing of it all, is the adventure.

And Marlow, you are "poor" because for all your pondering and mulling and conceptualizing, your awareness has remained fused to the stuff of experience, as your discursive mind has continued to grind on it, whereby apparently lost on you is any curiosity for or grasp of source, meaning much as you have enjoyed the trees, the experience of the forest - as greater than the sum of its trees - regrettably remains lost on you, poor Marlow, just as M. Miller's dowdy monks, in that dystopian junker, A Canticle for Leibowitz, remain dazzled by memoribilia ("trees").

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
May 28, 2012 - 01:06pm PT
there are the atheists telling the Christians what they must believe
to be "authentic"!. LOL !

Even better:
there are the Christians telling the Christians what they must believe
to be "authentic"!. LOL !

Also good:
there are Christians telling themselves what they must believe
to be "authentic"!. LOL !

Research "hypocrisy." Christians practically invented the term amongst themselves.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
May 28, 2012 - 01:10pm PT
Until atheism can provide a similarly rewarding structure for people, the church has no competition... regardless of how logical or illogical their religious beliefs are.

Even better if it's reframed...

Until... a new discipline... emerges and develops that can provide a similarly rewarding structure for people, the church has no competition... regardless of how illogical its religious beliefs are.

The good news: It's on the way.

This current age is just too powerful for a competitive belief system not to emerge and develop. Keep the faith. (evidence-based, of course)


......

(P.S. Your peculiar pagebreaks or returns are playing havoc with my quotes of you. Knock it off. :))
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
May 28, 2012 - 01:14pm PT
"No .... You don't know.

Speaking for every single person on this planet is pure speculation and projection."


This is speaking for everyone as well, you've just fallen into the same hole you dug. When you say you know, you're again speaking for everyone... pure hypocrisy.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
May 28, 2012 - 01:15pm PT
Largo says:

"And Marlow, you are "poor" because for all your pondering and mulling and conceptualizing, your awareness has remained fused to the stuff of experience, as your discursive mind has continued to grind on it, whereby apparently lost on you is any curiosity for or grasp of source, meaning much as you have enjoyed the trees, the experience of the forest - as greater than the sum of its trees - regrettably remains lost on you, poor Marlow, just as M. Miller's dowdy monks, in that dystopian junker, A Canticle for Leibowitz, remain dazzled by memoribilia ("trees")."

Answer:

So this is what you project into Marlow. How funny, how strange - Tell me more - I'm curious to see more of your "Marlow"-mind.
WBraun

climber
May 28, 2012 - 01:16pm PT
Paul ...

I didn't use "We".

It was only aimed at YOU.

You're being stupid .....
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
May 28, 2012 - 01:24pm PT
Ha! Stupid is as stupid writes.
paperplate

Social climber
Boise
May 28, 2012 - 01:47pm PT
I like the GAIA approach to our world and how it can be extrapolated to extend out into the universe and beyond...
GAIA promotes life and the stasis that maintains life. And life is necessary for the final leap to self-awareness, the conscious mind.
So it appears the universe has at least one predetermined objective: to promote self-awareness.
But why would it want to do that?
This question is where science and dieters (diety believers) find themselves now: a common question, with no common answer.
In GAIA, life is the product of many intentional physical processes. This intent is unexplainable, but supported and documented by science.
But the fact that it is unexplainable, gives way to many a believer in diety.
Neither side stops at this unanswered question: science looks further back and deeper into the world of space and time, while dieters find the answers locked away in a conscious mind that knows no limits.
I don't personally think life is an accident, but at the present, I am incapable of fathoming any explanation for my existence other than pure physical processes.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 28, 2012 - 02:36pm PT
So this is what you project into Marlow. How funny, how strange - Tell me more - I'm curious to see more of your "Marlow"-mind.
--


"Project," in the psychological sense, means to introject my thoughts onto someone else and define that person accordingly. In fact I have tried to deconstruct your jabberwocky (some of your examples are funny and ingenious and it's remarkable that you are not a native English speaker) and my sense of your approach is yet again one who has real problems with the proverbial "unseen" and lumps it all in with priestcraft and snake oil.

But if you have an honest admission of your own world view differing enough from the party line, I'd certainly be game to hear all about it.

JL
go-B

climber
Habakkuk 3:19 Sozo
May 28, 2012 - 02:46pm PT
Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is no one like Me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning,

And from ancient times things which have not been done,

Saying, ‘ My purpose will be established,

And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’


1 Peter 4:5 but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
May 28, 2012 - 02:48pm PT
Paperplate . . .thanks . . .nice post.

(HFCS seems consistently angry about things. I wonder how he got hurt.)
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
May 28, 2012 - 04:10pm PT
Largo

You said:
“The call is that anyone pointing out these gaps in our understanding is merely being ignorant, that the data is not in just yet but soon, surely in the next decade, we can "explain" how these things happened and were "created," that while we know there is gravity, there simply MUST be a graviton because there must be a physical cause for everything, excepting the big bang, and that sort of had a physical cause - Marlow's primordial acorn. “

Answer:
Have you read what I wrote about Big bang earlier? I ask because your speculation about Marlow’s view of Big bang as some kind of truth is wrong. I am not enthusiastic about repeating my points.

You said:
“And Marlow, you are "poor" because for all your pondering and mulling and conceptualizing, your awareness has remained fused to the stuff of experience, as your discursive mind has continued to grind on it, whereby apparently lost on you is any curiosity for or grasp of source, meaning much as you have enjoyed the trees, the experience of the forest - as greater than the sum of its trees - regrettably remains lost on you, poor Marlow, just as M. Miller's dowdy monks, in that dystopian junker, A Canticle for Leibowitz, remain dazzled by memoribilia ("trees"). “

Answer:
Once more your conclusion is wrong. As you see, I am curious about what’s going on in your mind, how your mind creates meaning to you about what’s going on in Marlow’s mind. And I see how your mind jumps to wrong conclusions that you could have avoided if you had paid attention to the data (what Marlow has written). You show me no data, just conclusions from the top of your ladder of inferences. I think this is a possible peculiarity of the way your mind functions - my hypothesis is that you have got a low scientific, high judgemental mind.

You said:
“"Project," in the psychological sense, means to introject my thoughts onto someone else and define that person accordingly. In fact I have tried to deconstruct your jabberwocky (some of your examples are funny and ingenious and it's remarkable that you are not a native English speaker) and my sense of your approach is yet again one who has real problems with the proverbial "unseen" and lumps it all in with priestcraft and snake oil. “

Answer:
As you have seen from my answers above, what you have done is just to “introject (your) thoughts onto someone else (Marlow) and define that person accordingly”. You keep on doing this all the time directed at people you see as opponents. I don’t know if it is a conscious strategy of yours or if it is just a “necessity” of yours having it’s origin in some personality trait. Possibly both. Acting this way, you are more of a polemicist and priest than a man wanting dialogue. If you had interest you could use this understanding of your communicative skills as a starting point for ethical reflection upon the way you communicate. In my view you pretend to be communicating while you are in reality preaching. In my view you are having a monologue, while Ed is trying to achieve a dialogue.

You said:
But if you have an honest admission of your own world view differing enough from the party line, I'd certainly be game to hear all about it.

Answer:
From what you have seen above I think you are the one having the clearest party line, almost as distorting of other peoples views as Fox news. You are acting like an old priest or schoolmaster who is not conscious about his own ignorance.

But for sure you’re a free man. You can decide to make a fair try to change or you can carry on at your polemical auto-pilot. It’s your choice.
Messages 6501 - 6520 of total 22398 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews