Have You Been De-Baptized? Edwin Kagan of American Atheists on Nightline
What do you think of Kagan's claim: "Atheists have no chance whatsoever of prevailing in a direct confrontation with believers. There are far too many [believers]." Does it resemble what David Eller said: "Christians are not easily argued out of their religion because...they are not ordinarily argued into it in the first place." Richard Carrier also chimed in on the use of ridicule.
71 comments:
I am not an atheist. Let me just say that. However, I have no problem with what he was doing. Atheism, no matter how much people want to disagree with it, is a religion. It is a religion of science and it is doing what is natural in religion. It is using transmutation for its practices. No matter how they view these rituals they are still rituals. My question is this though: Why can't you be religious and logical? It is possible;I am living proof of that. You don't have to believe in a 1700 year old book to be a Christian. Nor do you have to agree with the orthodox fundamentalist BS that is spewed forth on pulpits across the world.
Neo,
Because faith, believing something without sufficient or, indeed, any evidence, is contrary to logic and reason.
It is not logical for me to have faith and believe fairies exist. I do not believe they exist because there is not sufficient evidence warranting that belief. True, they are mentioned in books, but those books are not substantiated by actual evidence.
Why is belief in a god or deity, or whatever you want to believe in, logical? Given that all of the famous logical arguments for a god (cosmological argument, Anselm's, the moral absolutes, etc) are either structurally invalid and/or not sound, on what basis is belief in a god logical? Lay out your logical argument.
Do not you have to believe at least in certain parts ofthe 1700 year old book to call yourself a Christian?
The virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and one other thing- I forget what it is. Ken will correct me I am sure.
I like some of the Christian traditions-Xmas trees, singing Christmas carols and I even enjoy the poetry of certain parts of the King James Bible, but I do not call myself a Christian.
If I find my blow-dryer-I haven't used it for ages, I will take it to the next AAI conference in Montreal.
I don't believe in fairies either. I believe in a "loose" interpretation of the bible.
i do not take it literally. There are groups of Christians (an alarming number that is growing daily) that consider themselves liberal. Xmas is not on the right day at all and neither is easter. They are part of what I call "the great compromise" at the nicaean councils. Just because you don't agree with orthodox faith does not mean that you have to count out the possibility of an intelligent entity that we perceive as "god". That is only a word that tries to explain something that has been beyond our understanding. Let me ask you this: Do you believe in the laws of physics? Vague I know but humor me.
codeblue-many scientific theories are just that: theories. Just like those of religious ideologies. We accept them as fact because they seem logical and reasonable, but so did the theory that the world was flat and we were the center of the universe at one time. Science dwells in the unknown much as religion does. They postulate to the questions that they do not have answers for much the same as religion. they use the tools that have and make an educated decision based upon those tools. There is actually very little fact in either field
Neo stated:
Atheism, no matter how much people want to disagree with it, is a religion. It is a religion of science and it is doing what is natural in religion.
RE: Neo, every human (as part of the animal kingdom) comes into this world an atheist. Then these un-programmed minds move on to an agnostic position as they make contact with religions and face dealing with the un-provable.
As the human mind absorbs knowledge (correct or not) from the environment around them, religion is the default setting to help them explain basic fears (it has been this way both in ancient and modern times.)
Neo, why do churches carry insurance? Why do they ground their steeples and have a lightning rods sticking out the top of their steeple crosses? Now where is all this religious faith?
Fact is, they now have more faith in the “religion of science” then in their own god!
Face it: Other than a lot of pious religious talk, Christianity is as non-believing in its actions as any atheists I know of!
The day Christians drop all their health insurance, all their real property insurance (both personal property and on their churches (as soon as their loans are paid off)), ungrounded their steeple crosses and really prove to the secular world that their religious faith has real substance and the god they claim is really there can protect them, until then, (in my view) the Christian faith is simply made up of a bunch of what I call Religious Atheists!
So while you claim atheists have faith and are religious, I can prove that Christians don’t have faith and are really Religious Atheists!!
Neo,
That's just silly. Atheism in and of itself is not a relgion. I honestly don't know any atheists where I live who have religious practices associated with their atheism. You are trying to claim that because some atheists act in organized fashions that resemble practices of religious theists, that therefore all atheists do. This same twist of logic could be applied to many football fans, whose practices closely resemble religious theist practices. Therefore, football is also a religion. Remember, you are an atheist when it comes to every other god(s) that you don't believe. What religious practices do you have surrounding the lack of belief in those other gods? Likewise, I have no religious practices that surround my lack of belief in your paticular god(s).
Why waste the time with a hair dryer? You can get depabtized over the internet at debaptized.com. You will even get a printable certificate to put on your wall!
Even the Bible condemns the Religious Atheists I just described in my above comment:
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away., (2 Timothy 3:5)
So, unlike atheists, Christians and their Churches who don’t prove their total trust in their God by carrying insurance and taking preventive secular steps based on science could be described as riding an ethical and moral fence where the Biblical demands are on one side and the secular atheist demands are on the other.
In short, because of its lack of commitment, Christianity is getting shot from both sides!
Is it just me, or do news people love to highlight, in a profile of an atheist, the fact that said atheist has family member(s) who have "rebelled" and become very religious? Maybe it's selective memory, but profile pieces on religious figures don't seem to make it a point to bring up any children who have "fallen away" and rejected religion. Maybe they do and I'm not remembering it right.
A big deal was made about Franklin Graham supposedly "rebelling" years ago, but that seemed to be an unfortunate tendency among the media to view tattoos and motorcycle riding as "rebellion", rather than ACTUAL rebellion which involves doubting and questioning the doctrines of the faith. Franklin Graham never did any of that, as far as I am aware.
Hi Neo
You say: ..."Atheism, no matter how much people want to disagree with it, is a religion. It is a religion of science and it is doing what is natural in religion".
Papalinton
Your calling atheism a religion, despite countless correction on the appropriate use and definition of the word, on this and every other website and media, is both disingenuous and specious. And is motivated purely by political and polemical reasons.
You seem purposely disinclined to engage in a discussion that at least calls for a modicum of intelligent discourse in putting your case. Or perhaps you are a little rudderless, in exploring a worldview that so threatens your own. For the very fact that someone, anyone, can claim they have absolutely no need for a god to micro-manage their daily affairs, and appear to lead such fulfilling lives, must inevitably gnaw at your own confidence and test your own belief-states; and that there is nothing, nothing in this world or any other world [supernatural or not] that is going to undermine that fact. Perhaps as you are incapable of viewing the natural world without resort to theological lenses, you are unable to view atheism without contorting it into a form recognizable within your frame of reference, only from which you can make sense of it. That malaise unfortunately is a direct consequence of theological inculcation during your formative years. Theism offers a callow and unsophisticated funnel-focussed view of life looking from the big end back through the little end.
Atheism is not a disbelief in gods. Atheism doesn't need to disprove goads. Atheism is not a substitute for gods. Atheism disregards gods, dismisses gods, discredits gods. Atheism is disinterested in gods. Atheism simply has no need of a god to manage personal relationships in the world, just as you would expect it to be in the natural world.
Cheers
Sorry, I was out with the family yesterday and didn't have a chance to respond back to you guys. Atheism is a religion but you keep comparing it to christianity as your measuring stick. Here are a few questions to ask yourself to help you realize this fact:
1)Does your views try to help explain the natural world and the harbinger of life and time?
2)Does your views help you to understand what you are here for?
3)Is it a "theism" whether you believe in a deity or not?
4)Do you feel that you are correct in your views whereas others are wrong?
5)Does your views give an explaination of what happens after you die?
Now no matter how you answer these questions if you have an answer for them you are a part of a religious ideology. Just because you do not believe in a god or gods does not mean that atheism is not a religious ideology. It just is not a theistic ideology.
You all keep thinking that I am your average run of the mill bible beating christian zealot and I am not. Do you know how many people are "praying" for me because I told them isn't all true? A lot. I would have thought you guys would have caught onto the name by now. I am the beginning of a small movement of people called NeoChristians:very small. Just a few people that I have spoken to that I have helped to find answers. No I am not a cultists nor I am a crazy whackjob trying to convince people that scientology is real. If you want me to explain my views I will be more than happy to, but I just wanted to put this out there. I do not think the bible is the inerrant word of god, I do not think the bible is divine, I do not pray, I do not go to church, I do not believe in miracles,I believe in evolution and the big bang theories, I believe in scientific advancements, and I do not believe in a personal "god". I am not one of those mindless zealots walking around nor I am out to "recruit" new members. I like to debate and I like to get views from all sides.
Neo said:
"2)Does your views help you to understand what you are here for?"
This question is a classic apologist strawman that presupposes that humans are the pinnacle of "God's creation," and that we are endowed with purpose. Given 3 billion years of the evolution of life on this planet, there has been sufficient time for the "chance" development of homo sapiens through the buliding-block process of gene mutation, adaptation and reproduction, otherwise known as natural selection. All evidence suggests we're here now because the natural process we observe has remained more or less constant over the eons, not because an anthropomorphic creator deity willed us into existence and consequently gave meaning, or purpose to our individual lives. We can give meaning to our own lives by the manner in which we individually live them and then subjectively assess them, but that is categorically different than saying "we're here for a purpose."
Neo, are you an aunicornist? An aleprechaunist? Your lack of belief in these things must be a religion! *eye roll*
You have to be either disingenuous or stupid to claim atheism - the lack of belief in a god based on the absence of compelling evidence - is a religion.
So, which is it?
The non-belief of having a purpose is still a belief. It is not falsifiable in either context. Obviously you did not read my first post where I said "I am not and atheist". It is the same premise as agreeing to disagree. There are two different views, both clash with each other, but they are still viewpoints. I do not agree with the ideology that everyone has a specific purpose. I am a christian, but you cannot put me into any one group. I am "different". I am not an atheist but I do agree with many scientific theories such as natural selection and evolution. You can be logical and believe in something bigger than just science. Even physicists are starting to concede to that fact. I invite you to check out the study the paper "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology". It is very enlightening.
I get so disappointed with the use of the line 'scientific theories are just that... theories! Well... religion has theories too!'
Come on.
Pointing out that man was once wrong about a flat earth hypothesis is ridiculous. Why? Because science at least allows for the possibility of being updated.
Please propose when the next 'update' will occur to:
- 10 commandments
- Virgin birth
- A plausible explanation of the fall in light of evolution
- That women aren't allowed to be priests because Aquinas thought that the male seed was representative of god's 'active' creative power whereas the woman just brought an empty womb and did not have god's creative power. We now know better.
Anyway, those are just a few. Also... scientific theories are based on tons of evidence, must be predictive of future evidence, and are peer reviewed for flaws.
News flash: no religions have passed the peer review test.
See my post to read more about why we allow this dichotomy between rationality and critical thinking in almost all areas of life and then make exceptions to nearly all the rules to make the religious sector somehow 'work.'
Neo,
It seems you are a Five Point Neo-Christian like some Christians are Five Point Calvinists.
Could you do one thing for me? Could you find in Hebrew (or any ancient Semitic Near Eastern language) a word for what we moderns call science? Could you please point out to me where Jesus, or any author in the New Testament discussed any early scientific theory?
What about Paul? Surly this Greek speaking Hellenistic Jew who lived in and traveled wildly in Asia Minor had access to the Classical texts of Plato and scientific writings of Aristotle!
Could it just be that Paul’s development of the theology of Original Sin would have been totally counterproductive to human critical thinking in Christianity?
We are in a changed world where the apples of the Bible ARE NOT the oranges of today. If your premises are correct, then all departments of psychology at secular universities should be renamed departments of religions.
Even with all the hoopla about the Book of Revelation portraying some futuristic high-tech scientific war, careful reading of the text itself only proves it’s simply based on ancients religious myths and naturalistic events (such as volcanoes in the area like the one that killed Pliny the Elder), conquering armies based on those of Alexander the Great and the Romans mixed in with local locusts plagues.
Facts prove, it was Christianity’s total commitment to a core of belief in God and the Bible that drove its world into the Dark Ages!
@Neo
“Now no matter how you answer these questions if you have an answer for them you are a part of a religious ideology.”
-clamat-
So whether I answer “yes,” “no” or “maybe” I'm part of religious ideology? So the answers don’t matter. If the answers don’t matter, the questions are meaningless…or the test is rigged.
Sorry, Neo, but so far you have done nothing more than declare that “atheism is a religion because it is.”
Hi Neo
You say, ..." I am a christian, but you cannot put me into any one group. I am "different"
Papalinton
Well, bully for you.
religion is nothing more than a belief system; no matter what that system may be. It is a ways of mean for people to find answers. I am not going to site anything from the bible because I believe it to be irrelevant to the ideals that we have today. What I suggest instead of having the war between faith based science and science based faith why not work together to have a universal answers that speak to all people. I admit christians need to let go of ancient ideologies and false idols such as the bible. It is time to move on, but we should not abandon the notion of a creationist theory. It can be logically explained if the mysticism and the superstition is removed. Yes, it does alter the systems that are in place now, but is that not what happened around the turn of the first millenia? Look around at the full picture and do not limit your own understanding to one mindset. There is a war going on between those who believe and those who do not the lines are dug in deep. Neither side will concede any validity to the other. I actually attend a group of people from all different ideologies to discuss these very things. I love these types of discussions. No matter what you say that you may think I will get angry I will not. I enjoy it. I seek it out. In order for ones mind to grow you must allow yourself to accept the concepts that you feel you cannot in order to give a fair and impartial chance. If you were once a follower and now you are not than that means that something happened to where it just does not make sense anymore and the answers were not given or were not good enough. Each side must let go of there own quest for the control of what is true and realize that there is no truth except your own. That does not mean people should just have their own "build your own religion" mindsets but they should be open to new ideas. I contemplated atheism in my own journey and could not rationalize the "accidental" creation of the universe. There had to be a catalyst. There has to be some form of intelligence with the perfection of the laws of physics. Something in place for the checks and balances that exist on this planet and throughout the universe. To say that it was all just by chance is a poor scientific platform on which to stand. "God" is just a name in which this entity has been given. It is not a god in the sense that it has been taught by religious leaders. I just call it that really for lack of a better term. If you have a better term, please submit it, but science is not a god. It is a tool in which either resides or that it uses. Check out the fields of noetics and biophysics and that is where you see my view on god. I am a christian and a believer of a higher power than our own, but I agree that religion today is wrong.
religion is nothing more than a belief system; no matter what that system may be. It is a ways of mean for people to find answers. I am not going to site anything from the bible because I believe it to be irrelevant to the ideals that we have today. What I suggest instead of having the war between faith based science and science based faith why not work together to have a universal answers that speak to all people. I admit christians need to let go of ancient ideologies and false idols such as the bible. It is time to move on, but we should not abandon the notion of a creationist theory. It can be logically explained if the mysticism and the superstition is removed. Yes, it does alter the systems that are in place now, but is that not what happened around the turn of the first millenia? Look around at the full picture and do not limit your own understanding to one mindset. There is a war going on between those who believe and those who do not the lines are dug in deep. Neither side will concede any validity to the other. I actually attend a group of people from all different ideologies to discuss these very things. I love these types of discussions. No matter what you say that you may think I will get angry I will not. I enjoy it. I seek it out. In order for ones mind to grow you must allow yourself to accept the concepts that you feel you cannot in order to give a fair and impartial chance. If you were once a follower and now you are not than that means that something happened to where it just does not make sense anymore and the answers were not given or were not good enough. Each side must let go of there own quest for the control of what is true and realize that there is no truth except your own. That does not mean people should just have their own "build your own religion" mindsets but they should be open to new ideas. I contemplated atheism in my own journey and could not rationalize the "accidental" creation of the universe. There had to be a catalyst. There has to be some form of intelligence with the perfection of the laws of physics. Something in place for the checks and balances that exist on this planet and throughout the universe. To say that it was all just by chance is a poor scientific platform on which to stand. "God" is just a name in which this entity has been given. It is not a god in the sense that it has been taught by religious leaders. I just call it that really for lack of a better term. If you have a better term, please submit it, but science is not a god. It is a tool in which either resides or that it uses. Check out the fields of noetics and biophysics and that is where you see my view on god. I am a christian and a believer of a higher power than our own, but I agree that religion today is wrong.
I am not a five point christian believe me. I was just using that to prove a point. Answering yes or no to those answers proves that you do believe in something even it is nonbelief. Maybe shows that you do not know and therefore truly do not believe in anything.
I agree with a lot of what is said. I really do. I am a christian; a NeoChristian. I do think that people of my faith need to let go of the past and move into the present day, but on the other hand those who oppose those ideals need to see the validity in the proof that they offer as well. Chance or accident is not a very good scientific platform. To say that there is no intelligence in science or physics to me is insane. It's just too perfect; too balanced to be by accident. I only call it god for lack a better term. If you have one please submit it for you may be onto something that I am not. God is not science though. That is where it dwells or it is a tool that it uses, but I do believe that there is something that is responsible behind the laws of science. There is something that has intelligence behind these things. To say there isn't is saying that there is no real intelligence in those laws. That they only exist because they exist. Atheism is way of thinking. It helps to answer questions in which there are no definitive answers at this time. Religion is just another word in our language. It is the actions and the thoughts behind it that make it what it is.
Neo,
Despite the fact of labeling yourself a Christian, I(and I think most here at DC) would call you an agnostic.
If I’m wrong, then based on your logic (since I like Blue Grass Gospel music), I guess I’m a Christian atheist.
Shalom,
Harry
Damn damn damn Neo (and others)Learn what a scientific theory is...it is NOT what you think. I get so tired of this ignorance. I will stop there as Neo is stupid. Learn something then come back.
Ok first off. I am far from stupid. You want to compare mental compacity fine. I have an IQ of 178, graduated one of the top of my class (bad senior year, don't ask), and have spent the last ten years studying religion and scientific principles on my own and so far have a better grasp on what is theory and what is not than you. Theory cannot be proven you dolt. Theory is not fact. Do not attack my intelligence just becuase you are too ignorant to see past your own short comings. I am simply stating a very simplistic ideal that atheism is a from of religion. It is not christianity nor is it any other religion. It is it's own ideology where the followers of that ideology use scientific principles and theories as there scriptures. Comparing atheism to christianity is like comparing apples and oranges. They are different but they are both fruit right? That is all I am trying to say.
Sorry about that, I do not get upset about religion but attacking my intelligence does set me off. I am not an agnostic because I do believe whereas an agnostic just doesn't believe in anything. I do believe in Jesus and his sacrifice. I don't think he was a god, but a great man nonetheless. That is where I define myself as a christian becasue I believe that he sacrificed himself not only for the betterment of his ideals but as a symbol for people to look upon.
@Neo:
So would you deny original sin and any form of spiritual redemption occurrences resulting from the resurrection?
I've not ever run across anyone with quite your beliefs. You almost sound similar to John Crossan, founder of the Jesus Seminar. I heard a debate between him and I-can't-remember-right-now in which he denied that Jesus was who he said he was... but still considered himself a Christian. I was quite perplexed.
Is this accurate:
You:Jesus::Confucianist:Confucious
?
Neo,
The theologians of the world, self-taught or well-schooled, are religious clowns, court jesters, sleight of hand artists, stage hypnotists and charlatans.
You said in one of your posts on your blog,
Religion has become destructive because we have taken out the things that once made it so good:compassion, tolerance, and understanding.
Malarkey. No one needs religion to be compassionate, tolerant or understanding. In fact, the more religious a person is, the less likely he is to be any of those things. Obervably, religions do not impart such human desirables.
Religions are destructive because what they teach are the imaginings of silly and stupid humans and as such do not coincide with the real world. Being religiously stupid is a cake walk; understanding the real world is hard work. Given a choice, most people will take the easy out of religion. They refuse to be goaded into making the effort required to grasp the current best understanding of the world, the understanding presented through the sciences.
If you are a bright as you try to make out then your adherence to religious poppycock is indeed a mystery. If you are genious level intelligence, it must be the case that you are simply lazy. Even an idiot should be able to recognize the impossibility of ferreting out which of the tens of thousands of theologically distinct Christianities best aligns with the observed state of the natural world.
Then, too one of only average intelligence should be able to see that of all the gods that have ever been worshiped as awesome and powerful in some human community, none, not even one, has has been able to demonstrate any power at all. 100 IQ should get you that. Your claimed 178 IQ should take you all the way to "Holy shit, all these conflicting claims can't possibly be right and the sheer numbers of conflicting and contradictory claims makes the existence of gods of any sort, as manifestations of the claims of their believers, into a genuinely insoluble problem." IQ 178 should take you all the way there.
Since you are not there you are undoubtedly an exemplar of "Why People Believe Weird Things," a book by Michael Shermer. Somehow you ended up with a Christianity mindset -- almost certainly through family ties -- and using your intellectual skills, you defend a religious position you cherish, rather than giving it the sound intellectual treatment you might be able to give it. Don't feel bad. Many great intellects have been greatly retarded by religion.
For instance, Aquinas might have been capable of doing something useful for mankind, but, instead he spent his entire life slipping and sliding down the shithole of religion. His religiously stultified intellect and oppressive social circumstances left him retarded. Aquinas' cures for jock itch or dandruff had to wait for less religiously inclined individuals to happen along, since Thomas chose the easy way to spend his life: smacking himself upside the head with a twenty pound hand printed and illustrated collection of "The Best of Christian Short Stories From Genesis to Revelation."
Aquinas is a perfect example of how religious circumstances of birth can rob humanity of the fruits of an amazing intellect. Who knows, if Aquinas had been Muslim, he might have invented something that people everywhere value like the doorknob or Sudoku.
Yes, I do agree with a lot of what was said at the Jesus seminars. I do believe that Jesus did exist unlike many of the people there however. To those who can't fathom why an intelligent person would not be an atheist I say to you this: It is not logical. I was an atheist for a time, and then an agnostic, then a fundamentalist (bad times), then a gnostic, and now something else. I issue this challenge to everyone here. Ask me a question that perplexes you about religious ideology (i.e. the soul, god, jesus, the bible) and I will give a logical and reasonable answer that has no traces of mysticism or superstition. I will answer the first question asked. It will not be the orthodox fundamentalist christian answer because I am not an orthodox fundamentalist christian.
Atheism does not make sense because I cannot except the scientific premise of a cosmic mistake resulting in all of creation. The singularity alone is a big reason why I don't agree with the current form of the big bang theory. How many people here know who came up with the big bang theory? The answer may shock some.
Neo,
You say you've,
spent the last ten years studying religion and scientific principles on my own and so far have a better grasp on what is theory and what is not than you.
What you've said here and in earlier comments demonstrates that your last decade has been wasted. Studying religion is a waste in all but a social science perspective. If you think some version of it is true, your time has been truly wasted. Your undisciplined study of science has left you with a deeply flawed conceptual understanding of science.
You said,
Chance or accident is not a very good scientific platform. To say that there is no intelligence in science or physics to me is insane. It's just too perfect; too balanced to be by accident. I only call it god for lack a better term. If you have one please submit it for you may be onto something that I am not.
Nature doesn't care one iota about your sense of what is good or right or perfect. Your sense of the aesthetic is irrelevant to the workings of science. If you are insisting that these intuitions of yours be respected as carrying more weight because they are yours, you fail to understand that your intuitions are wrong. You have a very poor understanding of science indeed. You fail to understand that chance and accident play vital roles in science. You really do not seem very 178-ish.
My guess is that you've come here solely to propagandize for intelligent design creationism(IDC).
You said,
That is where it dwells or it is a tool that it uses, but I do believe that there is something that is responsible behind the laws of science. There is something that has intelligence behind these things. To say there isn't is saying that there is no real intelligence in those laws.
This tells us that while you're following the lead of your intelligent design creationism(IDC) kindred spirits at the Discovery Institute, you, like them, have failed to understand that IDC is of no value to the scientific community. IDC has no explanatory power, unlike a real theory like the theory of evolution.
So far here you've written,
"I am far from stupid,"
"I have an IQ of 178,"
and [I have ]
"have spent the last ten years studying religion and scientific principles on my own"
yet in none of the other things you've said here, have you demonstrated any level of understanding beyond the other sad and silly hack apologists who frequent DebunkingChristianity. You say the same stupid things they say and you disperse the same asinine misinformation and misrepresentations they use to expose their ignorance.
I'm ready and willing to be dazzled by your brilliance, but, thus far, you seem more 78 than 178.
Then let me ask you this Russ: Why did you not accept my challenge? Are you afraid that I may have valid answers? You insult my intelligence much the same as a fundamentalist christian would. Since I know you probably won't ask a question I will ask one for you:
How do you explain the soul and the theory of the afterlife?
The human soul is most simply the bioelectrical energy which is in our bodies. According to Einstein's theory of relativity energy cannot be created or destroyed it merely changes state. The energy in our bodies (which is measurable in ampules) changes state when we die. We are then in a different state of existance. Now what makes us transcend the event is our awareness and our emotional range. We are aware of our own mortality which other animals on this planet do not. I believe (pure theory) that our personality is imprinted on this dispersed energy and that is the existance that we have after our physical death. It is more of a continuation of your emotional and psychological state in a more pure form. We no longer have this life to distract us from who we truly are. In this sense, it makes no difference what ideology you agree with, but more of the psychological state that you are in.
Prove me wrong.
@Neo:
You didn't answer my question, but from what you did write, it seems that you would agree with my analogy?
you:Jesus::confucianist:Confucious?
Or not? To answer any question without 'mystical' or 'superstition' would yield what domain of answers? Natural?
If so, then I'm not sure what separates you from an atheist?
Regarding your soul hypothesis, what evidence would support your theory? I truly don't mean this to be offensive, but I see nothing you offer that's any more valid than, say, Depak Chopra with his theories about how quantum physics somehow allows us to 'think rich' and then 'get rich.' All you've really done is mention 'energy imprints' and posit what the soul does when it dies (without actually showing the soul exists).
Do you agree or do you think what you've said should be compelling? Why would one believe that when we die we can finally stop being distracted by life and thus finally be free with our true selves?
Also, you said the soul (which equals electrical output to you?) is measured in ampules... did you mean amperes?
Lastly, what about these instances of animal morality?
- 87% of tested monkeys starve themselves to avoid shocking a non-related peer (link)
- monkeys show response to fairness and demonstrate altruism (link)
P.S. Just noticed that you wrote "(pure theory)" and thus I'm not even sure I should have written the above as it's perhaps obvious to you... yet what in the world would you end with "Prove me wrong" for? Our souls (pure theory) are obviously liberated and return to our truly pure form as high functioning Thetans when we die so you're clearly wrong. Prove me wrong.
Neo said,
"...many scientific theories are just that: theories. Just like those of religious ideologies. We accept them as fact because they seem logical and reasonable..."
Absolutely wrong!
First, you are using the common definition of theory to refer to the scientific paradigm.
Second, science is not ritualistic; it is founded on empiricism (evidence and measurement). Now, I know you're going to try the old "how do we know the yardstick is really 36 inches" ploy. That doesn't wash, and here's why:
When we measure a quantity (ANY quantity that's measureable, since science is founded on the premise of observation of measurements), how do we know it's the "true" distance, weight, etc.? The short answer is that WE DON'T. So we measure it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. We have other teams measure the results over and over. Without going into the math, when we measure a quantity numerous times, we develop CONFIDENCE in the accuracy of the results, and we can calculate the "best" answer using statistics formulae (which, incidentally are PROVEN mathematics). However, even though the scientists KNOW what the answer is, there is still a tiny, tiny bit of uncertainty involved, and THIS IS WHY THEY USE THE WORD "THEORY", not because they're GUESSING as you stated.
Learn some science before you try to use it as a defense of Christianity, because it doesn't help your case.
Neo asked,
"1)Does your views try to help explain the natural world and the harbinger of life and time?"
2)Does your views help you to understand what you are here for?
3)Is it a "theism" whether you believe in a deity or not?
4)Do you feel that you are correct in your views whereas others are wrong?
5)Does your views give an explaination of what happens after you die?
Answers:
1. Science doesn't TRY to explain, it DOES explain. As for the "harbinger of life and time", this is nonsensical. 'Harbinger is defined loosely as "foreshadowing".
2. There is no "grand purpose" to life, other than to live long enough to pass our genes on to the next generation. All else is wishful fantasy.
3. More nonsense. Are you suggesting that everyone is some sort of "theist" whether we like it or not? Nice attempt to corral us into your arena.
4. Belief in God isn't wrong; it's TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.
5. Yes.
Neo said,
"...No matter what you say that you may think I will get angry I will not. I enjoy it. I seek it out. In order for ones mind to grow you must allow yourself to accept the concepts that you feel you cannot in order to give a fair and impartial chance."
All right, put your money where your typing fingers are, hero!
Learn some science, so that you might fairly evaluate that which you have dismissed as "theories" and "accepted as fact because they seem logical and reasonable".
That you even said such drivel proves that you never studied science formally. Get back to us after you have at least a couple of years of calculus-based physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. THEN, you might be qualified to comment, but you wouldn't say dumb things like the stuff I quoted.
Neo said,
"...I have an IQ of 178, graduated one of the top of my class (bad senior year, don't ask), and have spent the last ten years studying religion and scientific principles on my own..."
First:
IQ is POTENTIAL, not knowledge. So you're a 28 year old high school graduate with an internet connection and know how to spell "Google".
I'm impressed.
Proof that IQ does not equal knowledge:
Neo said,
"Atheism does not make sense because I cannot except the scientific premise of a cosmic mistake resulting in all of creation."
Where he typed except", the CORRECT word is "accept" (that wasn't a typo; it takes a certain amount of effort to misuse these two words interchangeably).
Apparently English wasn't part of the curriculum.
OOh! OOh! I know this one!
Georges LeMaitre, a Catholic Priest working for the Vatican Observatory.
Here's a better question, Neo:
Why does the Vatican even HAVE an observatory?
I love talking to atheists because some of you get more worked up than even the most devout fundamentalist christian. It's really great. My forte is not grammar. I will concede to that. I will respond to each of you separately as the posts would be enormous if I did not.
Hendy-thank you for being the most level headed person here and the comment "prove me wrong" was not aimed towards you. Ir was aimed towards Russ. I don't think of myself in those terms. I am no greater than anyone else. Do I believe that I have a firm grasp of my own ideologies:yes. Do I think that mine are better than anyone elses? Well that answer is obvious because I am here. I like to get all sides of the story ( and believe me I hear it from all sides)I just like to make people question what they believe either to enlighten them into a better understanding or to help them be stronger in their own convictions.
Eluding to your first question. I do not believe in original sin but there I do believe that there is redemption through the crucifixtion not necessarily the resurrection. I believe that Jesus martyred himself so that others would have a symbol to look upon to feel forgiveness. The only person that can forgive you is you. By believing in that sacrifice it helps in you forgive yourself because you believe he did it for you. The removal of guilt is the way that that symbol aids in your redemption. I hope that answers you question as far as my belief. Let me know if I need to clarify more.
Gearhead (seems a funny name for someone who doesn't have many up there)-I have studied on the fields of science that are fascinating to me such as biophysics, noetics, astrophysics. The one thing that is blindingly clear in all of those fields is there huge religious meanings. We have discovered one singular source of energy which binds all living things on the planet:proven. We have calculated the mass of thought, and many physicists are starting to explain "god" in better terms than religion ever thought. Traditional religion is a coping mechanism for own knowledge of our impending death. It was created to help us not be as fearful and give us something to look forward to after death. Science is not here for that. Science helps to explain the natural world. It has no presupposition to any theological minds set. Now, a lot, A LOT of atheists use science as their reasoning why they do not agree with any theological construct. Where some of those reasons are well founded others are not. I preacher or a priest can argue the validity of their faith just as strongly as you do yours.
Theories can be documented like you said, but many that are immeasurable such black holes, time space continuum, and other various conspiracy theories (not a very good one so I will give it to you as an easy rebuttal) are not gone over like they are with measurable phenomena. These are postulated and provided the best answer with what is available at the time and it is tested with only what our technology has available to us.
As an answer to the vatican question. As much as it pains me to say this, Catholics are far ahead of protestants in scientific acceptance. You were right about lemaitre, but they also accepted evolution as a "tool of god" and they have finally accepted galileo's findings. The Catholic church knows that they are behind the times and they are losing parishners because of it. I am not a fan of the vatican so throwing at me isn't very good ammunition because I like to rip them more than anyone else.
Hendy- About your monkeys comment earlier. That only demonstrates a self preservation instinct not necessarily the knowledge and acceptance of ones mortality. If monkeys or any other animal were to perceive of this than we would see similar behavior to our own (i.e. the formation of religious thoughts and ideologies) in order to justify this occurance or to ease the trepidation about their own impending death.
@Neo:
Thanks for the clarification. I do find your ideology pretty strange (no offense intended). Why? I just mean that to not believe in any actual existence of spiritually/biologically inherited fallen-ness but to believe that Jesus' crucifixion still repairs something in us seems weird. How are we improved by looking at a martyr and "feeling forgiveness", as you put it, as a result of looking at the symbol he left us?
Another question that occurred to me: how did you arrive at your conclusions? Can you be sure this is not simply the output of a mind raised in Christianity who later saw issues with some tenants of faith and reformulated everything in an attempt to hold on to at least something?
Also, no one (in your ideology) "needs" Jesus, right? He's simply a path or teacher or, say, bonus for those who do have him in their lives?
Lastly, did you read the first link in particular? I think "self-preservation" will be a tough hypothesis to prove when one monkey is literally choosing to starve himself for two weeks to avoid giving a shock to another. That's a heck of a long time and I'm not even sure that humans would do this 87% of the time. In addition, can animals be dismissed so out of hand? We're trying to judge whether another species has anything on the moral continuum at all not whether they have the same moral practices/values as us. Would we really expect less intelligent species to be as moral as us? Regarding alleviating death, many pets seem to know. Our cat crawled into a closet to be alone when he was about to die. Not saying this really proves anything, it's just that I am cautious to just say, "Well, animals don't have religions to worry about the afterlife and therefore they don't have an awareness of death" or something similar.
Neo said,
"...Traditional religion is a coping mechanism for own knowledge of our impending death. It was created to help us not be as fearful and give us something to look forward to after death."
Agreed. And complementary to that statement is my assertion that the concept of "soul" was created alongside religion so that we could continue to survive in some nebulous afterlife.
Neo asked,
"How do you explain the soul and the theory of the afterlife?
The human soul is most simply the bioelectrical energy which is in our bodies. According to Einstein's theory of relativity energy cannot be created or destroyed it merely changes state. The energy in our bodies (which is measurable in ampules) changes state when we die. We are then in a different state of existance..."
July 20, 2010 1:52 PM
Aside from the misuse of "ampules" (maybe should be "joules"?), I agree with most of this, up until the last sentence and the rest of that post that I left off. Consciousness is NOT soul. Our capacity to think is connected in a fundamental way to the structure of our brains; and when the brain dies, the capacity to think is forever lost. Thought is patterns of brain activity, and the brain is the "vessel" that contains the patterns. Now, while one can make a very good case that brain activity is a form of energy, dying releases the pattern-making constraints from that energy. The energy is not lost; it is randomized and escapes as heat and other chemical changes, or is used as an energy source for other animals such as maggots and bacteria.
Saying that "I believe (pure theory) that our personality is imprinted on this dispersed energy and that is the existance that we have after our physical death. It is more of a continuation of your emotional and psychological state in a more pure form..." is indeed "pure theory" (in the common sense of the word 'theory', NOT the scientific definition!), as in "this is what I guess happens, because it sseems reasonable and logical to me".
You answered your own question at the beginning of this post of mine:
"...religion...was created to help us..."
Created by whom?
Your "NeoChristianity" sounds (as you've described it here so far) like deism, with respect to some ideas of Christianity thrown in to try and make it appealing to some others who are looking for better answers that traditional Christianity offers. But it ends up looking VERY weak.
P.S.
"Gearhead (seems a funny name for someone who doesn't have many up there)-"
Nice ad hominem. My handle refers to my hobby of restoring classic musclecars, and my NAME is Ed. If you look at all my comments so far, you'll notice that I didn't stoop to insulting you.
Neo said,
"...Theories can be documented like you said, but many that are immeasurable such black holes, time space continuum..."
Using your Google skills, I'm sure you can find ample hard evidence for REAL black holes. They HAVE been discovered and documented, you know...
If not, here's a link for you (I know wikipedia is not considered a "good" reference, but the references cited at the bottom are, and wikipedia is a good place to START).
As for the 'spacetime continuum', you already believe in it. You appealed to Einsteinian relativity as the basis for energy conservation above (incorrectly, I might add, but I wasn't going to address the issue. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to a particle physics definition of mass and energy, NOT the chemical thermodynamics version you are implying in your "prove soul" post).
Gearhead-You did insult me. You insulted my intelligence and that is one thing that does set me off. If you disagree with what I say than that is fine, but do not question my mental compacity.
Aside from that I will concede to some of your summations about my beliefs. Yes, I do believe this way because it is logical to me, but don't we all do the same. You are right I did arrive at my answers largely based on my own thoughts and they were largely only influenced over books that I have read along the lines of liberal christianity. I have read some atheistic views but not an entire book on the subject so I will concede to some of what you have to say. The reason I love to talk like this in forums such as this (believe it or not I am pretty new to this blogging thing) I love to learn. I am learning a lot by every post about the passion that atheists have about their beliefs and the similarities that you share with you polar opposites;fundamentalist orthodox theists. They will fight just as passionately as you and provide just as compelling evidence in their defense. It is all about acceptance. Noetics is trying to prove the existance of the soul, but even if they could there is no way to prove what that existance entails. This is the way that I believe. Whether it is wrong or right we will not know until that one fateful day when we all find out the truth. We may all be wrong. Until it happens we there is not definitive way of proving or disproving anything. The only thing we can do is postulate the answers that we can conceive as correct and not be afraid to adapt to anything that may come across as logical.
Hendy-It goes back to my belief that we are in a state of our own emotions after we die. If we live with guilt it will be imbedded in our subconscious. The act of "feeling forgiveness" helps to alleviate that guilt and therefore puts us into a better psychological state. You are right about Jesus though. There is not a correct "messiah". I agree with Jesus, someone else my believe in muhammed or buddha. It all depends on your point of view.
Neo,
Mr. 178, you are a verifiable religious nutjob, but let me indulge you a tad with a question about the soul.
My DNA is composed of the same nucleotide bases as the DNA of every other living organism on the planet(let's reserve our discussion of whether or not an RNA virus is living until you demonstrate that you have something other than a homegrown misunderstanding of science, shall we). More specifically, my DNA is made of the same nucleotide bases as a chimpanzee. It is said that at conception I was infused with a soul. That is, the great ensouler was out there sniffing my genes to make sure they were not chimpanzee genes. Apparently He Who Sniffs the Genes, breathes in a significant distinction between that DNA which will direct a zygote to become a human and that DNA which will direct a zygote to become a chimpanzee or a starfish or a cockroach.
He Who Puts His Nose in the Reproductive Stuff evidently hates human DNA while he likes non-human DNA since according to oh so many of those Christian theologians, who listen to God and so can never be wrong -- just ask them, he has booby trapped human DNA with Original Sin.
What I'd like to know from you, Mr. 178, is this: what is the exact mechanism whereby your version of a god magically distinguishes one set of DNA bases from another? Is it some form of supernatural electrophoresis?
Also, since chimpanzees are almost identical to humans in many of their genes, why do they get the break from Original Sin? When your God has its face up the reproductive tract of a chimpanzee, assuring itself that those particular DNA bases are not deserving of the love that passes all understanding called Original Sin, why does it choose not to ensoul it? You must agree that chimpanzees would be fun when we're all in heaven, right?
I like to know why humans get the disease when the other apes don't since humans are so closely related to them. Even today the occasional human is born with a tail or the more protruding snout of a chimpanzee or fully covered in hair. So why does the little chimp's bugger of a genome get to enjoy life without the overhead of a soul and Original Sin. You know, your god could have just given us the TLA, SOS, meaning soul and Original Sin and saved us the hassle of laboring over the two. They always go together, right?
So, 178, dazzle us with your dizzying intellect, or baffle us with your bullshit concerning the soul, original sin and the human genome. Either way we'll let you know, but know, too, that to date you are mightily unimpressive if you are anywhere near 178.
Neo,
What the hell is "compacity"? I only ask because you've used it on this comment thread more than once in the same context that a less elevated intellect than you claim yourself to be might have chosen the word, "capacity." If you're going to twinkle and shine intellectually here at DebunkingChristianity you need to use real words.
Also, it would be useful if you employed correct word usage more often: there versus their; alluding versus eluding.
And, one more trifle: stop, just plain stop being so overtly stupid as in "We have discovered one singular source of energy which binds all living things on the planet:proven." Dumb, dumb, dumb.
When you say asinine things like "The one thing that is blindingly clear in all of those fields is there huge religious meanings" you show an astouding lack of appreciation for the fact that the religious will infuse anything with meaning. People find meaning in and even worship devils, snakes, mountains, sex, other people, trees, stars, the sun, penises, breasts, dragons.... So, don't think that you've offered us something special in your highlighting still more things that the religious associate meaning with. The religious are not particularly discriminating when it comes to emotionally charged notions like meaning. That they want to sprinkle some everywhere they look simply means that meaning is nothing special. Their continual abuse of words like love, joy, happiness and meaning have rendered them meaningless.
I most certainly did not insult you, Neo.
The closest thing to contempt in your direction that I wrote was
"IQ is POTENTIAL, not knowledge. So you're a 28 year old high school graduate with an internet connection and know how to spell "Google".
I'm impressed."
Now, either my assessment (which is based entirely on the things you said about yourself) is right or it's wrong. I have to assume that since you didn't deny it that it's true. And if it's true AND you took offense, then you're upset WITH YOURSELF for fitting the description I gave.
You have an inflated sense of your own reasoning abilities that's not warranted given the things you've said regarding science, religion, noetics, etc., and the spelling and grammatical errors that abound in your writing show a lack of mastery of the English language as well. And THAT is evident.
For example:
"Gearhead-You did insult me. You insulted my intelligence and that is one thing that does set me off. If you disagree with what I say than that is fine, but do not question my mental compacity."
The last word there is "CAPACITY", not 'compacity'. And you spelled it that way above earlier, so it's also not a typo. Furthermore, "If you disagree with what I say THAN that is fine" is WRONG, too. the proper word in this instance is "THEN", not 'than'.
You demonstrate for us all that you mental "compacity" is nowhere near as great as you imagine it to be. Take offense at the truth if you must, but I'm just pointing out your faults. You're just pissed that the truth isn't what you think it ought to be. That is your fault, not mine.
@GearHedEd:
Re. your second last post, I don't think he actually believes in original sin, just souls (see his responses to me).
I don't think there's much more than pure speculation.
I also have a hard time believing in 178 and wondered along similar lines as you when he presented his hypothesis that evidence for souls is found in the electricity generated by the body... measurable in "ampoules"... amperes?
Neo,
One more quick question regarding souls and original sin.
When god is rutting about in some woman's uterus or fallopian tubes eyeballing the little spermy guy making its way to the egg, his sole purpose for being there is to graft a soul onto the human DNA and infuse some original sin. This appears to be the only time in a person's whole life that God condescends to bother with humans -- free will and all. So tell me why does this God, the One the True, the Almighty, the purveyor of souls and orginal sin, let more than two-thirds of human zygotes end up in the reproductive tracts of those filthy good for nothin' non-Christians?
He makes the monumental effort to snake his way up a woman's genitalia to intervene in what must be a very important way, yet while he's there he refuses to go that one extra step of making sure more people are Christians. It's not like he would have to issue more complimentary passes to heaven. Hell, if you listen to enough Christians, you find that apparently all Christians are hellbound according to other Christians anyway. So, while he's right in there doing the dirty anyway, why does he let this prime opportunity slip through his fingers something like 180 million times a year?
People don't get a choice about having a soul or having original sin, God just dumps them on everyone, so why the hell doesn't he just make everyone Christian? If he can squirt an undetectable soul and some undetectable Original sin into every human's genes, the least he could do is make certain everybody gets the right religion. Oh, but, then, how does he make sure everybody gets the right Christianity. Oh, God! It's a supernatural conundrum.
Let us know soon, would'ya? This is obviously real important stuff.
Hey, since your IQ is higher than God's (Can you believe he was only about as smart as the people who wrote the books of the Bible? That's not too bright, is it?), maybe you can help him figure some of these things out. God is very confused and needs your help. How do we know? He's always telling different people radically different things. You straighten him right the hell out, will ya?
I agree, Hendy, except that it was Russ who brought up original sin here.
One last word on mental "compacity":
When the demonstration doesn't match the description, it would be unrealistic to expect that you won't be challenged on the difference in the two. If you're serious about trying to publish a book, prepare to be ridiculed more thoroughly than I have done!
"...but do not question my mental compacity."
I reserve the right to question ANYTHING that deserves to be questioned.
@GearHedEd
Whoops -- you are correct. Your compacity for details superseded my exceptance of the facts.
I understand that my grammar sucks. It is not one area that I am strong in. I tested very high in comprehension. I do mispell words from time to time. I am more of a speaker rather than a writer.
About your views on what I think "god" is. I think you are confused. I do not believe in original sin and I do agree with evolution.
I have to concede somthing here. I thought I had a pretty good grasp on what it meant to be an atheist until I began talking to you. I then realized that my only source of information was what I have read refutting atheism. I would like to learn exactly what it is that you adhere to as your beliefs. All of you can inform me, but I will give a run down on what I have come to understand as atheism:
Atheists do not believe in any spiritual or divine entity. You put your faith in scientific discoveries and only take that which is tangible and justifiable as proof. You believe that once you die that is the end and there is nothing that occurs after that point. All religions are wrong and all religious views are likewise wrong.
I am admitting my ignorance on this subject and I would love to learn more about it. I do not agree with traditional orthodox faith and while I may agree with a lot of what you say I probably will not become an atheist after this discussion. I do not bind myself to one mindset because that is only limiting yourself. I know it appears that I am not what I say I am and that is fine. Like I said I am not the greatest with grammar. I comprehend things better than most. My math skills are above average as well, but I hate math (it's just so boring). My strengths are in literature and in history.
I am prepared to be ridiculed for my work and I understand that. Because I don't have the initials MBA or PHD next to my name means that somehow I am not as knowledgeable than others. I have come to accept that. I am not asking anyone to agree with me. All that I ask is to entertain the notion of the possibility of it before dismissing it.
Hey!
I resemble that remark!
N'yuk, n'yuk, n'yuk, n'yuk!
This:
"Atheists do not believe in any spiritual or divine entity. You put your faith in scientific discoveries and only take that which is tangible and justifiable as proof. You believe that once you die that is the end and there is nothing that occurs after that point. All religions are wrong and all religious views are likewise wrong."
is essentially correct, with these exceptions:
First, I only speak for myself, not all atheists. What anyone else believes is his or her own business, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my right to believe what I delieve.
Second, I don't have "faith" in science, if your definition of "faith" in this case is equal to the concept of religious faith. Outside of the Bible, there's no hard evidence that many of the more preposterous claims therein have any reality to them, whereas science benefits us all in so many objectively measureable ways it would be ludicrous to claim "faith" as a basis for belief in science.
Here's an excerpt from a post I made about 18 months ago, in response to someone like you who wanted to know what I believe:
-------------------------------
"I consider myself a “functional atheist” (my terminology). What that means is that I, too, have been contemplating the answer (if there is or even can be one) to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This is where the “functional” part comes in. While I may be forced to agree that there is some ultimate “cause” underlying our perceived reality, I reject the speculative assumption (C.S. Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, et al notwithstanding) that some ‘creator god’ as described in the bible is the CORRECT assumption. I come to this personal conclusion because the stories, legends, etc. in the bible have proved on several (physical) fundamental levels to have been mistaken and incorrect in their assumptions. This is not to say that science trumps religion; on the contrary, I think (and have said so in other blogs) that science and religion need not be at odds, for the simple observation that if god created all, then science is an integral part of that creation. The opposite does not follow logically from that statement, just like ‘absence of proof is NOT proof of absence’; i.e., IF science eventually pierces into the Ultimate Truth, there is no (yet known) logical reason that god must therefore be included within it.
Also, I don’t believe in an “immortal soul”. I consider the concept to be more speculative assumption, based on the observation that we humans are in denial about the finality of death, and say to ourselves inane things like, “B-But there HAS to be something more…” No, there doesn’t.
Therefore, I say to myself, “Self, whereas you say that religion is based on speculation and assumptions, many of which have been proven false; and whereas you don’t believe in an immortal soul, what then is left to you?” And I answer, “What you have is the life you are living, and it is bootless to argue endlessly about who has the correct speculative assumptions (witness the thousands upon tens of thousands of blog entries devoted to this ONE question!), so I will not waste the life I have searching for answers.” Functional atheism: behave as if there is NO god, because there is no reliable evidence that there IS one.
One more item: most “true” atheists are not uninformed. Indeed, as many have pointed out, as a group, atheists are generally more intelligent and better educated (possible indication of a liberal bias there, but I digress…) than the average citizen. The usual accusations that Christians level at atheists, that we are bitter due to some perceived injustice God has done to us, or that we’re hedonists, unwilling to subordinate ourselves to “the Christian morality that can only come from God”, or even that we haven’t read the bible “correctly” (whatever THAT bullshit means!) are all disingenuous, and oversimplify the internal struggles all of us contend with."
------------------------------
Does that help?
Oddly enough, I agree with this, too:
"I am prepared to be ridiculed for my work and I understand that. Because I don't have the initials MBA or PHD next to my name means that somehow I am not as knowledgeable than others."
William Lane Craig is a Christian apologist with several advanced degrees, but he's an idiot. Having a slew of letters after your name doesn't confer the mantle of "truth" upon one's brow...
One last thing, Neo.
Math may be boring and difficult, but it is THE language of science. Anyone who pretends to be a critic, commentator, or scholar in the broad category of subjects known as "science" MUST have a mastery of mathematics as a basis to even discuss the concepts coherently.
This is not open for debate.
Well, gearhead I am glad to see that we do have some common ground. I too disagree with the bible and the terms in which it was written. I do have atheistic tendacies in what I believe. I am very adept with math, but it is not something that I go out of my way to do. I understand the mathematical concepts put forth by the scientific community (most notable e=mc2).
Thank you for giving me your views and understanding that what you may think is not necessarily what everyone else may consider as true. The reason I use the word faith is because of the passion that one has behind their beliefs. I take a lot of words from christianity and use them in more applicable ways. So, when I user terms like faith or religion or afterlife it is not the definition as put forth by the orthodox community. It is more of a gerneral term. To me faith is your belief in something no matter what that "something" is. I like that fact that you have not discounted the possibility of an intelligent source for creation. Call it what you will. We disagree about the soul and that is ok. I do not believe that anyone needs to be "saved" in order to escape damnation. There is no hell and there is no heaven, but only a different perception of existance. I find it to be logical whereas some do not. That's ok. As long as you are comfortable with who you are and what you think than it is not my place to judge but only to discuss.
Russ-Why are you so beligerent to me? Do I offend or intimidate you in some way? If I do then I do apologize. I like to have civil discussions without the name calling (religious nutjob). If you knew me believe me you would not say that. I get it from both sides. Atheists and traditionalists and even some liberals. I stand behind my ideals and I back them up. Attacking me is only fueling the speculation that atheists hate religion. I don't think you do. I think you don't agree with it and wish people would realize the errors that are present in it. Correct me if I am wrong.
also the reason why I am gone for a while is because I am an addict to world of warcraft (one of my vises). So, If I do not answer promptly it is because of that. I avoid no one, and I never back away from a discussion.
Read this and tell me if you understand it.
Then read this, and if you say you understand it then you must have studied tensor calculus extensively.
I doubt this, however, since having spent seven years in university level physics and engineering programs, I haven't NEEDED to study tensor calculus (I would like to, so that I can demonstrate to myself the higher fundamentals of physics). In the meantime, I haven't had a semester yet that didn't include university level mathemmatics including trigonometry, college level algebra, technical mathematics (applications in engineering), linear algebra, statistics and differential and integral calculus.
And I still don't know nearly as much as I'd like to.
Neo,
Before I address your comment to me, I want you to answer my serious, even if sardonically stated, questions about the soul. You asked me to ask you about religious ideology, saying,
I issue this challenge to everyone here. Ask me a question that perplexes you about religious ideology (i.e. the soul, god, jesus, the bible) and I will give a logical and reasonable answer that has no traces of mysticism or superstition.
and, then double dog dared me with,
Then let me ask you this Russ: Why did you not accept my challenge? Are you afraid that I may have valid answers?
So, I asked you questions about the soul and I look forward to assessing your claim that you "will give a logical and reasonable answer that has no traces of mysticism or superstition."
According to the vast majority of Christian religious, they "know" that God mucks with ova bearing human DNA and sperm bearing human DNA. Christians say that at conception God hangs a sandwich board over the genome's shoulders saying, I have a soul on one side, and, saying, I have the Original Sin plague on the other. So, at least according to those who have invented and perpetuated these myths and those who have had them imposed on them as true, God is not at all above forcing things on people. If it's correct, God does these two things to everyone. But, they say God leaves to "freewill" or some other such malarkey, whether someone becomes a Christian. Clearly, God thinks the soul and the sin are important to give people, while people being Christian is left to random circumstances. If that's the really important part, why leave it to chance?
Certainly, your years of theological musing will have at least have led you to apologist's answers to this inquiry. Or, is this no more important than to you than the language you feel free to ignore?
You said,
Russ-Why are you so beligerent to me? Do I offend or intimidate you in some way?
The reasons are manifold for my being belligerent toward you.
That you yourself lack respect for the ideas that you want us to respect is one such reason. Damn, son, for one claiming literature and history as strengths, you exhibit a complete lack of respect for what comprises the atomic structure of each of them: language, you know, real recognizable words strung one after another into sentences expressing ideas. Disrespect the words and how they are to be queued up into grammatically correct sentences and the ideas are irrelevant. If you think your ideas might be important or of interest to others, the responsibility is yours to translate those ideas from your mental thinking patterns into the language you want others to read and comprehend. Do not expect your readers to concern themselves with what you say when it's obvious that you don't care enough about it to give it the respect that good ideas deserve.
Neo,
That you claim to have an IQ of 178 and then gloat about wasting that potential with a World of Warcraft addiction is another. If you had a 178 in middle school, it's gone now. Remember that the quotient in intelligence quotient is inversely proportional to age. If you're twice as old, and but remain at the same intelligence, your IQ is only half of what it might once have been. Heck, from seventh grade my language skills have been better than what you exhibit. Realize that IQ is not as good an indicator of potential success as is creativity. This has always been the case. A demonstrated ambition to optimally use what skills and talents you do have has greater predictive capacity for future success than does being the sort of paper-smart potential that an IQ suggests. It seems that while you've gotten older you do not seem to have gotten proportionately smarter.
I've worked with many a person having IQs out on the fringe of human cognitive capacity(not compacity). Not one of them spent their time as you do pleading that others allow exception for holes in their understanding. I've never known a person with an exceptional IQ who did not have exceptional language skills: spelling, semantics, grammar, abstraction, metaphorical and analogical reasoning, etc. That makes some sense, though, doesn't it, since IQ tests rely on and directly analyze language capacities. The only special pleadings that I've ever heard by the intellectually exceptional I've known are ones similar to what GearHeadEd expressed concerning tensors. They bemoan that their exceptionalism needs to be extended, made even more exceptional. But, then, their ambition drives them to augment and use their skills to human benefit. There are no World of Warcraft addicts among them -- though some have developed the technology that mesmerizes you into failing to develop whatever mental capacities you still possess.
I could go on for days addressing the absurdity of what you claim versus what you demonstrate, but I'm not going to waste my time.
Gearhead-just got my internet fixed so I am reading those links you sent me now
Russ-I believe that energy in neither created nor destroyed. That is where I logically support my claim that the human soul is actually the bottled energy which resides in us. I understand about the depletion of neurons over the course of one's lifespan. I tested at 178 my ninth grade year. Yes, It is probably not the same as it once was, but I have also become "wiser" (please no socrates references) over the course of my life. The reason why my typing is not all that great is that my thoughts get ahead of me and to be honest I miss simple mistakes (i.e.-compacity). If I had looked over what I had typed I would have caught that but to be honest I did not think it to be a big deal in this forum. From now on I will be conscious of my grammar and vernacular.
The soul is a term. Just like everything else in any language. It is a word that we assign to something. The power that we put behind that word is only equivalent to the power that we feel for that word. The stigmas that are attached are completely societal. I am not a traditional Christian. You can even make the valid argument that I do not adhere to the Christian faith any longer. I believe I have found the middle ground between both atheism and Christianity. Yes, there are compromises on each side, but I never compromise what I consider to be truthful. To me the soul can both be rationally defined by the bioelectrical energy within one's self and also theologically defined because it is something that you would not be able to live without. It is not an organ, but it is still very much apart of you. Whether you believe that there is a perception beyond that state is purely speculative and, in my opinion, cannot be falsified or authenticated. It is truly a matter of faith on whether you can logically support the claim or you cannot. Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant because one day everyone will know what is right and what is wrong, and we will either be glad that we thought one way or not, or just fade into infinity. That is my definition of faith. It is not the belief in what is unprovable but the conviction that you have with your ideals. You have faith in atheism because you believe it to be true. You support your position based on findings and scientific data whereas someone who has more a theological faith structure uses more tools from a sociological viewpoint. Both can be agrued and both can be supported with the existing empirical data that we currently have. This is a debate that will continue long after us and has raged on for long before us. What a propose is simply this:
Instead of believing in "faith based science" or "science based faith" why not have the mean the same thing? Instead of working against each other why not work together to come up with logical and rational answers that is palatable to both parties? That is what I am trying to do. You have the right to disagree with what I postulate just as much as I have the right disagree with you. Acceptance is not a necessity, just the knowledge of the possibility that we do not have all the answers. The collaboration to work towards the ones that can be feasibly answered or hypothesised in scientific settings. Can my views on the soul ever be tested in a lab setting? Probably not, but then again there are many scientific models that cannot be at this time either. With new technology comes new insight in how to experiment on those ideals that seemed impossible in the past. I hope this answered your question. If it did not than I will be more blunt on my response.
@Neo:
- I would get retested for IQ. I'm not sure how old you are but I wouldn't really rest on something from 9th grade...
- Where do you get your soul=bioelectrical energy hypothesis? Just something that sounds cool and is non-falsifiable? What happens when the human dies and this energy stops? Is the soul dead? Could you devise an experiment to find out where the energy goes? Is there anyway whatsoever to find out if this could be true?
If not, is there anything different than me saying that I believe the soul is "the twinkle in one's eye"? After they die (and even those not healthy in mind/body) it deadens which shows that the soul is now back in communion with Borg collective, where it longs to be.
Unfortunately I do not have answers to those questions. If I knew of a way to test my hypothesis believe I would. I don't think we have the technology today to really do a feasible experiment with this.
How I came to this position?
Through my research from various works. My own interpretation of ancient texts and human biology coupled with Eisteinian physics. I am not saying that what I believe to be true is necessarily correct in a factual sense. I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my claims are verifiable. I believe they are correct because it is logical to me. Whether or not they are logical to you is completely a personal issue. I have simply stated what my beliefs are, but I ask you this: Completely disprove what I have said. Prove with 100% certainty that I am incorrect. There is no correct answer that we have today that can match up with those guidelines. All we have is our own ideologies or lack thereof.
I gotta point this out:
"I believe they are correct because it is logical to me. Whether or not they are logical to you is completely a personal issue."
Logic is not subject to personal interpretation, Neo. It either IS or ISN'T logical. You're misusing the term interchangeably with "what seems right to me", and that is NOT logic.
Look it up if you don't believe me.
Gearhead-all things are relative especially logic. Logic is the information that is interpreted from facts and perceptions. What I find logical may not be to you. This goes back to the Socratic argument about wisdom. It is not necessarily what you are taught but the life lessons and the knowledge that you attain through experience that determine wisdom. Something may seem logical is presented in the right way. You can make any instance seem logical. Just look at Baegent and his book. It seemed logical until other information was uncovered and was thus deemed as unauthentic. Politicians do it all the time. I'm sure it seemed logical for the Nazi's to perform genocide against the Jewish community, but that did not make it right. Logic is the perception of truth, not necessarily the byproduct of it.
P.s.-still going through those links you posted. Don't have a lot of time because of other engagements. It looks like basic Einstein physics, but I am only half way through them.
Read this and tell me where subjective interpretation is involved.
You are still using it wrong.
If we come to different conclusions given the same initial premises, one of us is engaging in fallacious reasoning.
Post a Comment