Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac · 23-09-2012 12:12am

King Mob wrote: »

Yet the only reason we know that there is dark matter out there is because of modern science.
And we can measure both dark matter and dark energy, we are just not yet able to tell what it is made out of.

We aren't going to be able to figure out what it is by suddenly deciding that all science is useless.
We will however figure it out using the scientific method.

Name one discovery that Sheldrake has ever shown to be true in well controlled experiments.

I am not anti-science nor do I think science is useless. I am a scientist myself and have worked in the science field for more than 3 decades. My beef is with dogmatic reductionists who deny the possibility of any reality other than the purely physical reality currently known. The irony of course is that modern physicists accept quantum entanglement (please explain how quantum entanglement works within the rules of our physical universe, you know the one where nothing can move faster than the speed of light). Their minds are completely closed which is an anti-science stance.

nagirrac · 23-09-2012 12:53am

gvn wrote: »

Scientists are empiricists, as such they study that which can be observed; after all, science is the study of the natural world (and not the supernatural world).

The whole field of string theory and M-theory is studying and proposing universes other than our own physical one that we cannot observe but predict through mathematics.

King Mob · 23-09-2012 1:58am

nagirrac wrote: »

The fact you highlight spoon bending reveals who you truly are, a fanatical sceptic similar to Wiseman and Randi. As for spoon bending, there are scoundrels in every walk of life, including science.

And in paranormal studies there have only been scroundrels and poor scientists.

nagirrac wrote: »

Experiments leading to the desired effect are all too common in science unfortunately and there are all too many example of "good" science being later exposed as "bad" science.

And the bad science is weeded out by the process of science, just as sheldrake's nonsense is weeded out.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you accept quantum entanglement then I simply don't know how you can just dismiss out of hand other strange effects in nature.

Because quantum entanglement is demonstrable. The strange effects that psuedo-science likes to point to are not demonstrable in conditions that exclude known and more rational explanations.

nagirrac wrote: »

Compared to quantum entanglement Sheldrake's hypothesis is much more rational, essentially that there is a memory effect carried by a field (the morphic field) influencing transfer of knowledge between organic entities.

But he has not been able to show his effect exists in conditions that exclude other explanations. Nor can he show that the effects are due to this field. nor can he show that the field exists. Nor can he propose any plausible mechanism by which this field could act in the manner her proposes.

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientific history is littered with mavericks who in their time were scorned and later proven correct. The establishment in Gallileo's time was the Church, there was no higher authority in science.

They were proven to be correct by material science. They were not accepted until that time.
The difference with Sheldrake is that he is making the claim that his stuff is proven when it is not, as well as other claims for which he has no support to claim, like for example his paranoid conspiracy he's imagining.

nagirrac wrote: »

You seem happy just to accept debunkers such as Randi and Wiseman who themselves have been completely dishonest in their fanatical zeal to debunk paranormal effects. Everything you need to know about Wiseman is revealed in his attempts to debunk Sheldrake's dog and staring experiments. Regardless of whether you belief or disbelieve Sheldrake's work, Wiseman is completely untrustworthy. On the dog experiment he got identical results and then misrepresnted his own findings, claiming to refute what he had actually verified.

I am happy to accept what Wiseman and Randi say because they make good supported points while you and Sheldrake resort to bad logic and dishonest tactics.
For example you repeat you point that Wiseman got the same results as Sheldrake, yet ignore the fact that it was pointed out to you that it is the interpretation of those results that are the problem.

You in fact seem to have no issue with just believing what Sheldrake has to say unquestioningly.

nagirrac wrote: »

Sheldrake may indeed be wrong in some of his conclusions on morphogenetic fields.

So again: what evidence or logic would you accept that would make you change your mind?
Why if you are really skeptical and open minded is this question so hard for you to answer.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not anti-science nor do I think science is useless. I am a scientist myself and have worked in the science field for more than 3 decades. My beef is with dogmatic reductionists who deny the possibility of any reality other than the purely physical reality currently known. The irony of course is that modern physicists accept quantum entanglement (please explain how quantum entanglement works within the rules of our physical universe, you know the one where nothing can move faster than the speed of light). Their minds are completely closed which is an anti-science stance.

Scientists do not reject anything, they just do not accept what is yet to be shown to exist.
You and cranks like Sheldrake have yet to show anything to support the idea of something "non physical". If you could provide that evidence and it stood up to scrutiny then it would be accepted.
But instead you and Sheldrake are whining about how mean scientists are and inventing conspiracies instead of providing that evidence.

nagirrac wrote: »

The whole field of string theory and M-theory is studying and proposing universes other than our own physical one that we cannot observe but predict through mathematics.

And those mathematical models could lead testable predictions. That's how science works. That's how Einstein did it.
The problem with string theory is that so far the only testable predictions that have been made require energies we cannot yet produce in particle accelerators or occur in conditions in which other explanations would confound the result. So like like Shledrake's theories, string theory is not accepted.
The reason string theory is taken more seriously is because they can point to their mathematical models that hold up to scrutiny and are both consistent with itself and current observations.
Sheldrakes theory has nothing to support it, theoretical, experimental or otherwise. Hence he is laughed at when he pretends that it does.

nagirrac · 23-09-2012 2:43am

King Mob wrote: »

And in paranormal studies there have only been scroundrels and poor scientists.

So was David Bohm a poor scientist who described Sheldrake's work as consistent with his own ideas of an "implicate" and "explicit" order. Bohm seems to be fairly well respected no? I think its telling that physicists are more positive towards Sheldrake than biologists as they are more familiar with strange effects compared to a science that is still largely mired in 19th century thinking.

Everything you say confirms your position as a reductionist scientist or supporter, and I have a strong leaning to holistic science. I suspect there is not much common ground so lets just agree to disagree as we have beaten this dead horse enough.

King Mob · 23-09-2012 2:56am

nagirrac wrote: »

So was David Bohm a poor scientist who described Sheldrake's work as consistent with his own ideas of an "implicate" and "explicit" order. Bohm seems to be fairly well respected no?

It doesn't matter if he's well respected or not, he's still capable of being bamboozled by crappy science.
Dropping well respected names is an appeal to authority, a dishonest, invalid argument.

nagirrac wrote: »

I think its telling that physicists are more positive towards Sheldrake than biologists as they are more familiar with strange effects compared to a science that is still largely mired in 19th century thinking.

I believe this is because physicists are less familiar with confounding factors that would muddle the results. Confirmation biases play less of a role in maths or in experimental equipment than it does with psychlogical research like Sheldrake's.

But then h has yet to produce a plausible mechanism by which his theory could work, so I doubt that they are many physicists who take him in anyway seriously.

nagirrac wrote: »

Everything you say confirms your position as a reductionist scientist or supporter, and I have a strong leaning to holistic science. I suspect there is not much common ground so lets just agree to disagree as we have beaten this dead horse enough.

Or how about you actually answer the questions and points I pose to you instead of trying to find excuses to not answer them.
If you are just going to run away because some one takes the opposite opinion to yours, it just shows how weak and empty this "holistic science" faff really is.

I am a reductionist supporter because that is the only thing that has or will actually work.
No one has ever shown any effect or phenomenon that is the result of supernatural or "non-physical" influences.
Every single time it has been claimed to be the case it has always been shown not to be true the moment science catches up.

There's no reason to assume that Sheldrake's theory is an exception to this rule, especially since he cannot provide a plausible mechanism, show that this mechanism would explain an effect or even actually the effect exists in the first place.

Again: what evidence or logic would you accept that would make you change your mind about Sheldrake's work?

nagirrac · 23-09-2012 3:24am

King Mob wrote: »

If you are just going to run away because some one takes the opposite opinion to yours, it just shows how weak and empty this "holistic science" faff really is.
I am a reductionist supporter because that is the only thing that has or will actually work.

Again: what evidence or logic would you accept that would make you change your mind about Sheldrake's work?

I am not running away, but have learned to my enormous benefit that life is too short for ongoing debates with those holding extremist views.

You are truly closed minded if you are not aware of the enormous impact of holistic science in complex systems, in particular systems biology. To state that reductionist science is the only thing that will work is laughable considering the 5 great unsolved questions in physics remain unsolved despite the great efforts of reductionist science.

As for Sheldrake, I cannot prove his hypothesis myself. I can only read his work and the work of others and reach my own conclusions. Ironically Dawkins' own work on meme theory has been described as pseudoscience.
Until morphic fields are studied further I simply cannot be convinced 100% one way or another. I suspect there are areas wher Sheldrake is wrong and this will be proven in time but I am fairly convinced he is on the right path.

I leave you with a quote from the great Douglas Adams: "If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat. Life is a level of complexity that almost lies outside our vision".

Have a read of Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe" and open your mind a little.

King Mob · 23-09-2012 4:42am

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not running away, but have learned to my enormous benefit that life is too short for ongoing debates with those holding extremist views.

Lol extremist views.
But again, if you are forced to stop debating because you don't think you can convince someone, that's because your point is essentially empty.
The fact you apparently give up often is a good indicator of it. As is the fact that you are totally incapable of answering direct simple questions.

nagirrac wrote: »

You are truly closed minded if you are not aware of the enormous impact of holistic science in complex systems, in particular systems biology.

Then show this impact. I'm willing to look at the good solid evidence you can supply, but experience tells me that you are not going to be about to supply it.

nagirrac wrote: »

To state that reductionist science is the only thing that will work is laughable considering the 5 great unsolved questions in physics remain unsolved despite the great efforts of reductionist science.

And again we only know these "5 great unsolved questions in physics" exist in the first place is because of reductionist science. Reductionist science is working in meaningful ways to address these problems.
What is actually laughable is you calling that laughable yet are somehow confident that reductionist science will never solve these problems.
How do you know that?
People used to think that they'd never be able to explain the photoelectric effect, or solve the Ultraviolet catastrophe which had utterly shaken the science of the time.
I think if had you been alive at the time would have declared that the failure of the Michaelson-Morley experiment showed that materialistic science was useless....

And how come your holistic science has not been able to provide the answers?
What solid testable answers has holistic science ever provided?
Name one single thing that's ever been provably explained by a supernatural or non-physical thing.

nagirrac wrote: »

As for Sheldrake, I cannot prove his hypothesis myself. I can only read his work and the work of others and reach my own conclusions.

Yet this seems to mean that you'll only read his stuff and ignore the bad science and dishonesty while also refusing to look at any criticisms.

And if you can't prove his work (and on one else can) then you agree with me that he has not shown that the effect he is describing actually exists.
And this makes your entire argument and beef with mean old science completely silly.

nagirrac wrote: »

Ironically Dawkins' own work on meme theory has been described as pseudoscience.

And? What's your point?

nagirrac wrote: »

Until morphic fields are studied further I simply cannot be convinced 100% one way or another. I suspect there are areas wher Sheldrake is wrong and this will be proven in time but I am fairly convinced he is on the right path.

So you cannot be convinced that he is wrong. You can't even think about what might prove him wrong... but I'm the closed minded one?

nagirrac wrote: »

I leave you with a quote from the great Douglas Adams: "If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat. Life is a level of complexity that almost lies outside our vision".

Douglas Adams was an atheist and very much in the camp you're decrying as close minded.

[Deleted User] · 23-09-2012 11:54am

nagirrac wrote: »

The whole field of string theory and M-theory is studying and proposing universes other than our own physical one that we cannot observe but predict through mathematics.

Indeed, both hypotheses are highly theoretical, but they are still attempts at explaining the natural world. Scientists study the natural world because science is the study of the natural world; science is not concerned with that which is not natural or that which is supernatural. I don't see how you can object to this given it's a distinction that's explicit in the definition of science itself.

nagirrac · 23-09-2012 5:26pm

gvn wrote: »

Indeed, both hypotheses are highly theoretical, but they are still attempts at explaining the natural world. Scientists study the natural world because science is the study of the natural world; science is not concerned with that which is not natural or that which is supernatural. I don't see how you can object to this given it's a distinction that's explicit in the definition of science itself.

The definition of science is the pursuit of knowledge. All of science is study of the natural world, science is the pursuit of knowledge regarding the world we live in. Are you saying paraphyscologists are not scientists? If science was limited to the known natural world Einstein and everyone following him in theoretcial physics would have been ignored as they were proposing effects that did not fit with the existing accepted view of what constituted the "natural" world. Einstein himself did not accept the results of EPR and referred to it as "spooky action at a distance".

Paraphyscologists study the natural world i.e. strange effects that are commonly reported in the natural world. The attempts so far to explain these effects are theoretical, but attempts to explain the natural world nonetheless (just like string theory). There is no doubt from the empirical evidence that psi effects exist, but they are held to a higher standard when it comes to be accepted due to the bias against this area of study in the establishment scientific community (sceptics like Wiseman even accept this). With the lack of funding in the paraphyschology area combined with the derision and scorn from the establishment scientific community and sceptical community, it is amazing that anyone pursues research in this field.

There is an excellent article available online which covers this topic very well. It is "Paraphyschology: Science or Pseudoscience" by Marie-Catherine Mousseau which exposes the myth that paraphyschology is pseudoscience and does not follow established scientific method.

King Mob · 23-09-2012 6:24pm

nagirrac wrote: »

If science was limited to the known natural world Einstein and everyone following him in theoretcial physics would have been ignored as they were proposing effects that did not fit with the existing accepted view of what constituted the "natural" world. Einstein himself did not accept the results of EPR and referred to it as "spooky action at a distance".

But then Einstien and all other theoretical physicist attempt to explain the new effects in naturalistic terms, not supernatural or non-physical ones.

At the Einstein's time they couldn't explain the results of the Michaelson Morley experiment with the current level of understanding.
Yet Einstein was able to provide a reductionist, materialistic explanation.
How do you explain this?

nagirrac wrote: »

Paraphyscologists study the natural world i.e. strange effects that are commonly reported in the natural world. The attempts so far to explain these effects are theoretical, but attempts to explain the natural world nonetheless (just like string theory).

But they don't provide a theory. No parapsychologist has ever produced a sane, plausible theory to explain the effect they are studying, let alone support that theory with any sort of reasoning or evidence.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no doubt from the empirical evidence that psi effects exist, but they are held to a higher standard when it comes to be accepted due to the bias against this area of study in the establishment scientific community (sceptics like Wiseman even accept this).

There is doubt about "psi effects" as they have never been produced in conditions that exclude cheating or other effects.
They are held to a higher standard because 1) such effects have never been show to exist 2) when they are analysed closely they are always found to be due to other, non-supernatural effects.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

String theory is at least able to produce consistent mathematical models that offer solid explanations.
No parapsychologist can do this.

J C · 24-09-2012 6:33pm

Closed-minded 'Skeptics' ... eh???!!!
... strange ... but apparently true!!!

Is this a case of some Skeptics becoming a caricature of their own prejudices ... and becoming what they most criticise in others ... closed-minded dogmatism (that what we can physically sense is all there is) !!!:):D!!!

Just got to love you all ... in all your amazing contradictions!!!:D

Tim Robbins · 24-09-2012 10:32pm

Import letter in Irish Times today. I am not starting a separate thread for this because any I do just end up getting sent here.

Sir, – As a former orphan I welcome the children’s rights referendum. I hope it will prevent in future the abuse that I suffered as a child along with over 30 others in the Westbank Orphanage, Greystones, Wicklow.

Some criticism is emerging to the effect that the provisions might give the State too much power.

All I can say is that the state exercised none over Westbank. As a Protestant Evangelical institution it was left to its own devices without any apparent interference. We had our names changed to that of the owner, the late Adeline Mathers. We suffered physical plus sexual abuse and were used as child labour on farms and in shops in Northern Ireland.

In addition we were paraded as orphan children in front of church-goers in Northern Ireland. We were expected to perform party pieces in the expectation that this would exercise the charitable sentiments of onlookers. It did, but the money raised and new goods and toys donated were not for the benefit of the children.

I use the term “orphanage” advisedly in that it was almost impossible to adopt a child out of the place, unless prospective parents conformed to Miss Mathers’ interpretation of God’s plan for human kind. I know this because my half brother was forcibly extracted (literally) from Westbank by people who became his loving adoptive parents in Northern Ireland. Of course, we only became aware years later that we were half-brothers, as even twins in Westbank were denied knowledge of sibling relationships.

I am for the State exercising power over religious fanatics who think their interpretation of God’s law is superior to all else. The State is required to exercise its powers. In our case it did not, as was also the case with the Bethany Home, Dublin, where I was born in 1966. That has to change.

Currently, the records of Westbank have been removed from PACT, the former Protestant Adoption Society, by the Westbank Trustees in Bray Gospel Hall. They appear to have no training in such matters and are reluctant to give information to former Westbank residents. Perhaps the State could start to show some good intent by taking an interest in that. – Yours, etc,

COLM BEGLEY,

(Formerly “Robin Mathers” of

Westbank Orphanage),

Carrigadrohid,

Co Cork.

Pretty disgraceful. Although it does not surprise me that religion can have these type of consequences - and it is not just the Catholics at it.

Religion works on the basis on pyschological manipulation by someone stronger on someone who is pyschologically weaker. It is complete mind control and it does not surprise the range of very sinister consequences it has.

G.K. · 24-09-2012 11:09pm

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

Tim Robbins · 25-09-2012 3:01pm

G.K. wrote: »

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

Parents (stronger) tell their kids what to believe (weaker)
Roman Empire (Stronger) over all its subjects (Weaker)
Henry the wife beater (Stronger) over all his people (Weaker)
European colonists (Stronger) over North Americans, South Ameriancs and half of Africa (Weaker)
European missionaries (Stronger) tell their impoverished Africans what to believer (weaker)
Preachers / Priests / Bishops(Stronger) tell their parishes / audiences what to believe (weaker)

What's that phrase from the Jesuits? 'Show me the child and I'll show you the man?'

That's how the meme goes around in the majority of cases. You will get exceptions - I think Fanny for example is an exception. Perhaps not.

And before someone goes of on a tangent, when I say weaker - I mean overall weaker.
So an African might be pyschologically stronger than a European missionary but not have the same access to information and knowledge as someone studying maths in Trinity does. So overall they are in a weaker position.

Fanny Cradock · 25-09-2012 7:18pm

I'm struggling to see how any of those supposedly analogous generalisation have any bearing on your generalisations about religion at large.

Blinkus · 12-10-2012 4:34pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm sure lots of intelligent people (even scientists) believe astrology. It is still a stupid idea, but that appeals to people through a manipulation of particular mental traits of humans, rather than rational determination. Or to put it another way, you have to actively invoke your rational brain to remind yourself how stupid it is. If you don't actively invoke this critical analysis and simply accept what you instincts tell you, it seems to make sense. Or to put it another way, the part of least resistance is to simple accept astrology.

You can call an idea stupid without calling the person who accepts that idea stupid. Christianity is stupid. That doesn't mean everyone who accepts it is stupid. People should remember that. There are very specific reasons why Christianity can appear very appealing to someone and none of these are because the person is of lesser intelligence.

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

pauldla · 12-10-2012 4:42pm

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Do you see any contradictions in what you have written..?

Blinkus · 12-10-2012 4:47pm

pauldla wrote: »

Do you see any contradictions in what you have written..?

If you are talking about Theology, yes some Theologians, liberal ones, are guilty of over rationalizing. Even supporting abortion and women priests for example.

Being highly educated is not a bad thing, but if you have motives to do the wrong thing you can over rationalize to justify them. Theologians at least, most of them are good at heart so they have built a rock solid system of studying God and Religion

It seems there is a contradiction there, but when examined carefully enough, you'll find there isn't.

pauldla · 12-10-2012 5:10pm

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

OK. let me point out where I see some errors.

Theology is not the study of god. Theology is the study of how god or gods are perceived within the context of specific belief systems. It is, if you will, the study of human perceptions of god, and the structures or creed posited on those beliefs. Hence, catholic theology, jewish theology, etc.

The remainder of your post seems completely contradictory to me. You seem to think that theologians can't overrationalise 'to a point where they deceive themselves' (apart from silly, liberal theologians, of course). You then indulge in a bit of up-is-down-ism (blind to the irony of your own over-rationalising), and manage to get a mention of the Nazis in there too (good one! Always a clincher in an online debate).

I could reply that if you want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. But that would be lazy of me.

tommy2bad · 12-10-2012 5:26pm

This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy

Damn those liberal totalitarian dictators, why cant we have illiberal hardline dictators.

pauldla · 12-10-2012 5:37pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Damn those liberal totalitarian dictators, why cant we have illiberal hardline dictators.

What is a liberal totalitarian dictatorship? "By decree of our Glorious Leader, all citizens are free to form their own opinions, following the dictates of their conscience and/or faith. Citizens who fail to do this will be shot!"

Morbert · 12-10-2012 5:54pm

Blinkus wrote: »

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Surely you must see the irony in this post.

Tim Robbins · 16-10-2012 1:46pm

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Have you just used a big pile of words yourself to say something that can be said very succinctly as 'ignorance is bliss'?

Lantus · 16-10-2012 5:15pm

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

A flawed sociologist if he believes that the nazi's were intelligent. He probably meant to say they had above average IQ's. This is not IMHO the same as being intelligent. No rational person would do what they did and then claim to be intelligent.

Best not to mention that era in germany anyway. The german church fully endorsed the regime and even agreed that christianitys teachings were being adminstered correctly by the nazis and in accordance with gods law.

Being intelligent and better educated is a step towards gradually reducing our belief in myth and superstition.

HHobo · 04-01-2013 10:32am

Hi Phil,

There are some questions I would also like to ask someone who takes their Christianity seriously. So if you are of a mind to answer...

philologos wrote: »

Not a single person is righteous, no not one. Paul also goes on in the first few chapters (let's say from 1 to 5) about mankinds predicament. Namely, that they have all sinned and turned away from God and rightfully deserve God's wrath, and that there is nothing in our own strength that we can do to justify ourselves.

This is one of the things I find pernicious about Christianity. If it is human nature to be "sinful", and it must be if we can be certain that no human is able in reality to be "righteous", then we are essentially being punished by God for having the nature he himself imbued us with.

Also, the bible has many apparently righteous people in it. Noah, Job, lot off the top of my head. Consider also how God treated Job. Job was a good and righteous man, so much so that God decided to boast to Satan about it. He even allowed Satan to murder his family so he could prove a point. God himself is guilty here of the worst kind of malice but of course, being God anything he does himself is instantly considered righteous, not because of the vitues of lack thereof of the action itself but solely because he is the one doing it. It is directly a might-makes-right philosophy.

philologos wrote: »

Coming to salvation as far as I can tell Scripturally is the point when one realises that there is absolutely nothing in their own power that they can do to be just with a holy and a righteous God, and realise that they need a Saviour to stand in their place and take God's wrath on their behalf, and indeed that person was Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:8-9).

You see the irony in this? Jesus, according to Christian tradition, is God. So God is taking his own wrath? This makes little sense. Even assuming it did, the concept of scapegoating, i.e. the putting of sins onto another, is an ancient idea that no moral philosopher would take seriously today. God is not guilty of the crimes for which he is stepping in to take the wrath. By any measure of Justice, the guilty are getting away with it and the innocent are being punished.

Note also that Jesus is not being handed the same level of punishement that humans are. He "died" for three days and then gets to be king of the universe for all time. Not quite the hell we mere mortals are promised. He isn't, by any serious accounting, taking your punishment.

philologos wrote: »

Essentially it was the moment when I realised that I had sinned before God, and that I needed a Saviour.

I might well be wrong about this but wasn't it Paul who also said that no-one could know ahead of time who was saved and who wasn't. That is a decision that rests solely with God. If this is the case, is it not extremely presumtuous, if not arrogant to use the expression "I was saved...."?

philologos · 04-01-2013 10:52am

I'll come to this post later when I get home from work. It's a good contribution to the thread so thanks a lot for posting it.

Tim Robbins · 04-01-2013 3:15pm

philologos wrote: »

I disagree, we should be trying to make sense of what we believe through Scripture.

IS this possible if you:

1. Don't understandand ancient greek
2. Hewbrew
3. And have the original copies of the texts?

philologos · 05-01-2013 6:02pm

HHobo wrote: »

This is one of the things I find pernicious about Christianity. If it is human nature to be "sinful", and it must be if we can be certain that no human is able in reality to be "righteous", then we are essentially being punished by God for having the nature he himself imbued us with.

We've sinned before God. We've all done it. That's what I mean. God gave us the freedom to do X rather than Y. Unless you want to blame God for making us autonomous beings I don't see how the objection makes much salt.

If we decide to do X rather than Y it seems silly to claim that it is God's responsibility to ensure that we make the right decisions.

HHobo wrote: »

Also, the bible has many apparently righteous people in it. Noah, Job, lot off the top of my head. Consider also how God treated Job. Job was a good and righteous man, so much so that God decided to boast to Satan about it. He even allowed Satan to murder his family so he could prove a point. God himself is guilty here of the worst kind of malice but of course, being God anything he does himself is instantly considered righteous, not because of the vitues of lack thereof of the action itself but solely because he is the one doing it. It is directly a might-makes-right philosophy.

Noah sinned (Genesis 9:18-29) and Job did also (Job 42:1-6), Moses did many times, Abraham did numerous times, David did by committing adultery. The only person I can think of that was entirely perfect in the Bible is Jesus.

HHobo wrote: »

You see the irony in this? Jesus, according to Christian tradition, is God. So God is taking his own wrath? This makes little sense. Even assuming it did, the concept of scapegoating, i.e. the putting of sins onto another, is an ancient idea that no moral philosopher would take seriously today. God is not guilty of the crimes for which he is stepping in to take the wrath. By any measure of Justice, the guilty are getting away with it and the innocent are being punished.

I don't think it's particularly ironic at all. It perhaps seems strange at first, but I think it makes total sense.

I studied moral philosophy at university quite extensively. I think quite a number of moral philosophers throughout the years have been Christians, and would indeed take Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection seriously.

But you're right Christians do believe that Jesus was God. Christians also believe that Jesus was born in human flesh to save us from our sin. God being just and merciful took His wrath upon Himself to show us the full cost of sin, and also to show us how much we have been forgiven.

Some people have asked why couldn't God just forgive without sending Jesus into the world. I think if God "just forgave" we would have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all. However, Christians do have reason both to believe that God takes sin very seriously, and that sin is costly, to believe that God's justice has been satisfied, and that God is clearly merciful.

You're right. Jesus dying on the cross is unfair. I deserve condemnation in full. God showed his love to us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-9). We deserve God's wrath, but we got his mercy instead. That's the good news. Jesus died to rescue us.

There's nothing in our power that we can do to be saved. We're guilty. Therefore there is nothing we can do to be not guilty. However, the judge in bearing the wrath Himself shows that although we are very clearly guilty He is willing to forgive us at cost to Himself because He loves us.

I think if God "just forgave" without doing anything that it would compromise the view that we are guilty at all, and indeed it would be saying that God was at fault rather than us.

As for it being "scapegoating". Yes, that's precisely what it is. Scapegoating came from the Jewish practice at the Day of Atonement which is described in Leviticus 16. But in short, two goats were offered for sacrifice, one to atone for the sins of the people, and the high priest would put his hands on the other goat to pass all the transgression onto this goat and to let it go into the wilderness. So the second goat in running away shows that the sin of Israel had departed from them. Christians believe that this practice points towards the ultimate sacrifice for sin, Jesus. The sin of the world was passed onto Jesus, who was our representative, in the same way that Adam was formerly our representative. The difference being that Jesus brought righteousness and Adam brought condemnation (Romans 5 covers this rather thoroughly).

The same with other scenarios like Exodus 12 which describes the Passover. Much in the same way that the angel of death passed over the houses of the Israelites because they were marked with the blood of the lamb, in the same way God's judgement will pass over us because we've accepted that Jesus stood in our place on the cross.

HHobo wrote: »

Note also that Jesus is not being handed the same level of punishement that humans are. He "died" for three days and then gets to be king of the universe for all time. Not quite the hell we mere mortals are promised. He isn't, by any serious accounting, taking your punishment.

Jesus was blameless prior to taking on God's wrath on our behalf. We are not blameless in any respect. Jesus was Himself God but was utterly separated from the Father while He was on the cross. By the by, I don't think time is a huge factor in this as I don't believe that God is bound by time in the same way we are. It is entirely possible that Jesus bore the full extent of God's wrath in a temporal time period.

The death and resurrection of Jesus has deeper significance in the Christian gospel. Namely that as Jesus died we died to sin, and as Jesus rose again we were born again in His name (Romans 6).

It is because of this that Jesus is our Lord. We've died to the old way of living so that we can submit to Christ.

HHobo wrote: »

I might well be wrong about this but wasn't it Paul who also said that no-one could know ahead of time who was saved and who wasn't. That is a decision that rests solely with God. If this is the case, is it not extremely presumtuous, if not arrogant to use the expression "I was saved...."?

It's not arrogant to say that I am saved when Jesus and the subsequent apostles make it very clear that those who believe and trust in Him have life in His name. The New Testament makes it clear that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus and those who fully believe and repent in the Gospel are saved in His name.

If I was saying this on my own account without Scriptural authority, I'd agree, I'd be arrogant. Moreover, if I was saying that only I could be saved at all, I'd be arrogant.

What I am saying is this. Jesus came into the world to rescue us from sin. Anyone who believes, I'll say that again, anyone who believes can be saved through Him if they will only repent and believe in Him.

God has assured us that whoever repents, believes and trusts in Jesus Christ will have pass from death to life.

Tim Robbins · 07-01-2013 4:29pm

Lantus wrote: »

A flawed sociologist if he believes that the nazi's were intelligent. He probably meant to say they had above average IQ's. This is not IMHO the same as being intelligent. No rational person would do what they did and then claim to be intelligent.

Best not to mention that era in germany anyway. The german church fully endorsed the regime and even agreed that christianitys teachings were being adminstered correctly by the nazis and in accordance with gods law.

Being intelligent and better educated is a step towards gradually reducing our belief in myth and superstition.

Philogos said he thought there were intellectual difficulties with atheism in another thread. Could you elaborate?

I am guessing you think atheism means you believe there is no God as opposed to disbelieving in any of the Gods put forward by various religions?

HHobo · 07-01-2013 5:57pm

philologos wrote: »

We've sinned before God. We've all done it. That's what I mean. God gave us the freedom to do X rather than Y. Unless you want to blame God for making us autonomous beings I don't see how the objection makes much salt.

If we decide to do X rather than Y it seems silly to claim that it is God's responsibility to ensure that we make the right decisions.

You are ignoring the fact that God created us in accordance with his own whims. You don't go around murdering children. Presumably you aren't filled with the desire to murder and restrain yourself solely on moral and legal grouds. It is not in your nature to do it. God has created you with the desire to do X and he then impliments a prohibition against X. I would say he has some responsibility.
It would be like you designing a sentient robot and instilling in it a strong desire to light things on fire. You then tell the robot not to do it. Do you think people would accept you saying "..but I told it not to do that" as removing all culpability on your part for designing it that way in the first place?

Also. If I said to you. "You are free to eat those cakes over there if you like but I'd rather you didn't." ... "Oh and by the way, if you do eat those cakes I'm going to set you on fire".
You would characterise this as freedom to choose?
Imagine a court where a criminal is defending himself against a murder charge and his defence goes like this
"I asked the victim to give me all their money. They chose not to. I only killed them because their choice displeased me. They were free to hand over their wallet. You can't blame me for their choices!"

If you wish to claim that God is an exception to this idea and what he says goes because he is God; you are making a might makes right argument. You don't think that God need to have any moral justification for his rules and punishments. We are his toys and he can play with us in whatever fashion he chooses. It is hard to reconsile that with our being free agents.

philologos wrote: »

Noah sinned (Genesis 9:18-29) and Job did also (Job 42:1-6), Moses did many times, Abraham did numerous times, David did by committing adultery. The only person I can think of that was entirely perfect in the Bible is Jesus.

In Job's case the sin is nothing more than questioning God's motives. (Can you imagine a more despotic idea than being guilty of a crime for nothing more than question the motivations of the leadership)
This sin is also commited only after God permits the heaping of miseries on him when he quite rightfully thought himself to be innocent of any crime. God is being a complete asshole here. He is insinuating that he has justifications that Job doesn't understand. Job is lead to believe that he must have done something wrong in order for God to be allowing his current misfortunes and that he simply can't comprehend the nature of it. Job is infact entrirely correct that he had done nothing wrong and his treatment was infact unjust. It was God's hubris and apparent failure of omnicience that led to Job's suffering. What Job doesn't know is that God motivations are self-aggrandising and petty. His "sin", in a perverse irony, is not believing that God must have a good reason.

Not sure what Noah's sin is supposed to be. Nakedness?

With Abraham, one of the worst things he does is almost stab Issac to death. I don't think God considers this a sin though. Apparently, to God, murdering your child (Abraham's intent) is fine if it is a demonstration of loyalty to him.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think it's particularly ironic at all. It perhaps seems strange at first, but I think it makes total sense.

I studied moral philosophy at university quite extensively. I think quite a number of moral philosophers throughout the years have been Christians, and would indeed take Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection seriously.

There are modern moral philosophers who think scapegoating is ok? I really hope that isn't true

philologos wrote: »

God being just and merciful took His wrath upon Himself to show us the full cost of sin, and also to show us how much we have been forgiven.

What cost does God pay exactly? Are you claiming it is equal to eternal damnation?
By what right does God forgive our sins against other people? If somone else punches you in the face, can I stroll up an forgive them for it. Surely it you, and only you, that has the power to forgive the offence?
If the claim is that God is personally offended by your actions and it is this offence is forgiving, then he seem to only be interested in punishing sins against himself. Sins against others are not his concern beyond how they make him feel.
Also, it is logically impossible to be fully just and merciful. I have often heard people claim that God is maximally just and maximally merciful. I don't think these are compatible. Justice requires that the evil be punished. Mercy requires that someone be excused their proper punishment.
Finally, is it really mercy, if you inflict the punishment on someone else?

philologos wrote: »

Some people have asked why couldn't God just forgive without sending Jesus into the world. I think if God "just forgave" we would have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all.

This doesn't make a whole lot sense as we already have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all.
The question stands. Also, if you do some harm to me and I wait until after I have punished to the full extent of the law and then forgive you, it is not really forgiveness, or at least a palty effort. Surely to be meaningful, forgiveness must be given

philologos wrote: »

However, Christians do have reason both to believe that God takes sin very seriously, and that sin is costly, to believe that God's justice has been satisfied, and that God is clearly merciful.

Again, justice satisfied and mercy. You see the strangeness also in God essentially being a slave to his own requirement for Justice. He appears to lack the ability to forgo attaining this Justice. As much a slave to his nature are we, perhaps? He'd better hope he wasn't created that way by a more powerful being who is going to punish him for it

philologos wrote: »

You're right. Jesus dying on the cross is unfair.

This is an injustice then, something God is apparently not capable of.

philologos wrote: »

I deserve condemnation in full.

Only according to God's arbitrary rules.

philologos wrote: »

God showed his love to us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-9). We deserve God's wrath, but we got his mercy instead.

We deserve God's wrath; who decides we are so deserving? God does. Accuser, Judge, Jury and law maker. This has the Euthyphro dilemma written all over it. Essentially, are God's laws based on an intrinsic good (which means God is not the source of goodness), or are God's laws good because God decrees them (This means that if God decrees that murdering people for fun is good then it is good.)

philologos wrote: »

That's the good news. Jesus died to rescue us.

From himself. Quite bizarre.

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing in our power that we can do to be saved. We're guilty. Therefore there is nothing we can do to be not guilty.

Guilty by decree. Sounds rather despotic. Saddam accuses you of being a traitor. The only person who can decide if you are guilty or innocent is Saddam. You are born guilty of sedition. Would you really be grateful for him shooting his own son in your place? Would he strike you as loving and just?

philologos wrote: »

He loves us.

A willingness to torture you for ever removes any possibility of this being true. It also junks any possibility of God being merciful.

philologos wrote: »

I think if God "just forgave" without doing anything that it would compromise the view that we are guilty at all, and indeed it would be saying that God was at fault rather than us.

It wouldn't be saying that at all. If I forgive you for something without first smacking you areound a bit I am seemingly at fault. That is a really perverse view of forgiveness.

philologos wrote: »

As for it being "scapegoating". Yes, that's precisely what it is. Scapegoating came from the Jewish practice at the Day of Atonement which is described in Leviticus 16. But in short, two goats were offered for sacrifice, one to atone for the sins of the people, and the high priest would put his hands on the other goat to pass all the transgression onto this goat and to let it go into the wilderness. So the second goat in running away shows that the sin of Israel had departed from them.

Even if you can transfer the punishment for a sin, you cannot transfer the responsibility. The former is perverse and the latter nonsensical.
Consider a murderer. He is found guilty and sentenced to death. His wife, to profess her love, chooses to take his punishment. She is killed in his stead and his debt is considered paid. The horrifying nature of this scenario aside, is he now not a murderer. Can his wife take on the moral guilt of the crime?

philologos wrote: »

Jesus was Himself God but was utterly separated from the Father while He was on the cross.

This is a logical contradiction. The law of non-contradiction. Jesus cannot be God and not-God at the same time. He can't be seperate from himself.

philologos wrote: »

It is entirely possible that Jesus bore the full extent of God's wrath in a temporal time period.

You can't compress infinity into any arbitrarily long non-infinite period.
That doesn't make sense.

philologos wrote: »

The death and resurrection of Jesus has deeper significance in the Christian gospel. Namely that as Jesus died we died to sin, and as Jesus rose again we were born again in His name (Romans 6).

In what sense does Jesus "die". Can God die? (and simultaneously not be dead?)

philologos wrote: »

It's not arrogant to say that I am saved when Jesus and the subsequent apostles make it very clear that those who believe and trust in Him have life in His name. The New Testament makes it clear that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus and those who fully believe and repent in the Gospel are saved in His name.

What was Paul onabout then? (assuming it was Paul. I can't remember for certain)

If I was saying this on my own account without Scriptural authority, I'd agree, I'd be arrogant. Moreover, if I was saying that only I could be saved at all, I'd be arrogant.

philologos wrote: »

What I am saying is this. Jesus came into the world to rescue us from sin. Anyone who believes, I'll say that again, anyone who believes can be saved through Him if they will only repent and believe in Him.

Do you see nothing wrong with belief being the primary basis for salvation?
Why is belief necessary? Would you agree that belief is not itself a moral matter?

Apologies for the length of the post, there was a lot to unpack in there!

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments