| Blogs > Azera |
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 20 2012 00:18 Kukaracha wrote: No particular point in this case, simply answering to this : But he was completly accurate in adressing your misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory." | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
Science at the spiritual level? What's an example of that? Can we propose falsifiable and testable claims and collect observational evidence refuting or defending those hypotheses? Do spiritual claims fit into the scientific method, or are they just personal experiences that are unverifiable? Positivism left important traces in our culture, which led people to confront science to ethics or metaphisics. Science can't and should not be applied to questions such as "is there a god". However, my point is that common people do make this sort of mistake, showing that science to them is not only an educated and precise analysis of reality, but a way of life. Now, while I do agree again with you when you say that science is the best set of methods used to describe the world, I still think that your thought process is wrong. This claim can only be made outside of these methods, epistemologicaly, and not by using the criteria found withing scientific beliefs themselves. And last, you've been adressing the Bible as a book of facts, but it is only a base for exegesis. Many, if not most, don't actually believe that there were burning bushes speaking to random peasants, but that it's an allegory or a metaphor. You wouldn't read Thus spake Zarathustra and say to yourself "dude, how could this fly kill the broken artist in the eyes of the superhuman child?". A few empty-headed followers who would sincerely believe that there was a deadly fly and very, very strong kid chillng with an agonizing artist do not invalidate the book as a whole. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On February 20 2012 00:51 zalz wrote: But he was completly accurate in adressing your misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory." Sure, a man cannot build a scientific theory on his own, nor can theories be built (but rather accepted) but the original impulse was indeed given by a religious man. My main point being simply that the belief in god and the study of science don't contradict themselves. | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
On February 19 2012 18:25 Azera wrote: It seems to be much easier to use god as a motivation because it's just that simple. You don't have to find out for yourself what you really want to do, just do whatever the holy text tells you to (or your parents). Perhaps. But what good is it if such motivation goes towards oppression? Take Christians in politics for example. The majority of Christians have been on the wrong side of every major social issue in the past 150 years. Is it any wonder that the Church has lost its place in society as a moral authority. Is it any wonder that fundamentalist Christians have become a laughing stock. Take the following examples: * In the founding charter of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in the United States, just prior to the civil war, the founding fathers took a firm stand in defense of slavery which they believed to be ordained by God and justified through the references to slavery in the scripture (Eph 6: 5-9, Col 3:22-4:1). * Many Christians took a strong stand against women’s suffrage around the turn of the century. They argued that the Bible clearly specifies that women should have no place in the governance of men and that to give women the right to vote would be a clear violation of the laws of God (1 Tim 2:11 – 3:13; 1 Cor 14:33-35). * In the early decades of the 20th Century, Christians took a strong stand favoring prohibition. This issue was so important to them that they violated their own doctrine of separation of Church and State to lend their full weight to the ratification of the 18th amendment. This too was done based on clear scriptural authority (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 6  -10, Eph 5:18), while ignoring scripture to the contrary (1 Tim 5:23, John 2:1-11). In standing for prohibition, the Church participated unwittingly in laying the foundations of organised crime in the United States. The structures and alliances which developed during prohibition for distribution of moonshine are now used to distribute drugs. As a result, prohibition may well have been the most socially destructive event in the nation's history.* Christians took a strong stand against allowing divorced individuals full participation in Church life. This too was based on strong scriptural authority (Mark 10:1-12, Mat 19:1-12, Luke 16:18). For many years divorced individuals were not asked to teach Sunday School or hold office in the Churches. * Christians took a strong stand against racial integration. Churches which accepted African-Americans as members were removed from fellowship in the local associations and censured in various ways. * And of course, today that motivational energy is directed towards homosexuals. | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:10 Kukaracha wrote: Sure, a man cannot build a scientific theory on his own, nor can theories be built (but rather accepted) but the original impulse was indeed given by a religious man. My main point being simply that the belief in god and the study of science don't contradict themselves. But the study of science clearly shows that snakes cannot talk. So a belief in God (Genesis 3:1) contradicts science. The study of science shows that drinking poison will kill you. So a belief in God (Mark 16:18) contradicts science. The study of science shows that mountains cannot be commanded to move. So a belief in God (Matthew 17:20) contradicts science. There are countless examples. I can easily provide many more if you have never read the Bible before. Feel free to try and refute the above by proving any of them but please do it via YouTube so we can see it rather than just take your word for it. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:30 Sogo Otika wrote: But the study of science clearly shows that snakes cannot talk. So a belief in God (Genesis 3:1) contradicts science. The study of science shows that drinking poison will kill you. So a belief in God (Mark 16:18) contradicts science. The study of science shows that mountains cannot be commanded to move. So a belief in God (Matthew 17:20) contradicts science. There are countless examples. I can easily provide many more if you have never read the Bible before. Feel free to try and refute the above by proving any of them but please do it via YouTube so we can see it rather than just take your word for it. On February 20 2012 01:05 Kukaracha wrote: And last, you've been adressing the Bible as a book of facts, but it is only a base for exegesis. Many, if not most, don't actually believe that there were burning bushes speaking to random peasants, but that it's an allegory or a metaphor. You wouldn't read Thus spake Zarathustra and say to yourself "dude, how could this fly kill the broken artist in the eyes of the superhuman child?". A few empty-headed followers who would sincerely believe that there was a deadly fly and a very, very strong kid chillng with an agonizing artist do not invalidate the book as a whole. | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
In that case, can you please clarify for me - are the following also metaphors? - The existence of God. - Jesus being able to heal. - A virgin birth. - Ressurection. - Heaven and Hell. Or are they also just as absurd as burning bushes speaking to random peasants? At the end of the day - a belief in the existence of the supernatural God of the Bible is equally as ridiculous as the belief in the existence of a supernatural burning bush, would you not agree? Put it this way - you've basically called 90% of Christians who believe in the above empty-headed followers, because the majority of them believe they are not metaphors but facts, just as they believe that the existence of God is fact. If the Bible is not a book of facts, then when you say it is not incompatible with science - well, that's like saying the belief in Zarathustra is not incompatible with science. Well, depends on whether you think Zarathustra is just a fictional character or not, and whether you think God is just a fictional character or not. | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 19 2012 19:10 Epoch wrote: I'm of Atheist/Agnostic disposition and I don't really care for religion tho.. I watched "The Vice Guide to Liberia" recently, where a group of guys with camera go into Liberia and interview people. Check it out, etc.. The place is a complete war zone. People kill each other, eat each other, torture rape, do drugs all at a young age like you name it. It's f insane. The only people that had any like shelter or any kind of good goals were the religious people. And before I saw that I never thought religion would be good for anyone, but in the case of people living in Liberia, it's an improvement on their quality of life/behavior. Even if it's just a slight improvement. So I guess in their case, it's good motivation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Liberia Liberia isn't exactly the land of non-religion. :| | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
I will raise you Edgar Allan Poe. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:30 Sogo Otika wrote: In that case, can you please clarify for me - are the following also metaphors? - The existence of God. - Jesus being able to heal. - A virgin birth. - Ressurection. - Heaven and Hell. Or are they also just as absurd as burning bushes speaking to random peasants? At the end of the day - a belief in the existence of the supernatural God of the Bible is equally as ridiculous as the belief in the existence of a supernatural burning bush, would you not agree? Put it this way - you've basically called 90% of Christians who believe in the above empty-headed followers, because the majority of them believe they are not metaphors but facts, just as they believe that the existence of God is fact. If the Bible is not a book of facts, then when you say it is not incompatible with science - well, that's like saying the belief in Zarathustra is not incompatible with science. Well, depends on whether you think Zarathustra is just a fictional character or not, and whether you think God is just a fictional character or not. Well of course they can be allegories. Jesus' healing powers could represent love, the virgin birth the christian virtue, a pure creation, resurrection as the new age of a christian world, etc, etc... There's no need to think much to find such ideas. Anyone who has read a bit of litterature should be quite familiar with abstract visions and their exegesis. The "supernatural" God of the Bible is undefined. The words that qualify this concept go from "a burning flame" to "the first word", again very abstract ideas that could mean pretty much anything you want - it doesn't even need to be above nature, some believe it to be nature itself. God could be an idea, it's not necessarily a "guy". If not, why would people study theology all life? Now, when I was talking about christians, it is true that I was thinking about French believers, who usually have a good level of education and automatically dismiss the idea that there was, in fact, a flying goat with bat wings dancing the macarena outside his house. However, if I take in count all christians - nearly 2 billions, then yes, the majority of them are empty-headed followers. People in general are empty-headed after all. However, what kind of logic leads you to think that their belief is foolish, even though you have no idea of what they believe in exactly, and believe yourself that this undefined thing doesn't exist? I am an atheist myself, but I have no illusions : my choice is intuitive, it's a belief and not an absolute truth. PS: Zarathustra is actually not a "guy" but a character who impersonates Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch. Just like the idea of God, it does not contradict anything science says as long as it remains in a metaphysical level. Following this logic, Democritus discovered atoms and globalization started with the invention of caravellas in the 15th century. It depends of how you see it, but Edgar Allan Poe's work was everything but scientific. | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:45 Kukaracha wrote:However, what kind of logic leads you to think that their belief is foolish, even though you have no idea of what they believe in exactly, and believe yourself that this undefined thing doesn't exist? I am an atheist myself, but I have no illusions : my choice is intuitive, it's a belief and not an absolute truth. The kind of logic that leads me to believe that their belief in God is foolish is the same kind of logic which says someone who bases their lives around believing in Thor, or Zeus, or any other similar fairytale. | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:16 Sogo Otika wrote: The kind of logic that leads me to believe that their belief in God is foolish is the same kind of logic which says someone who bases their lives around believing in Thor, or Zeus, or any other similar fairytale. It is not, because Zeus is a well-defined deity while God is a concept. I see that you have a hard time understanding my point, so here are a few examples I can think of : - God could be the first movement, the first impulse, the first form of existance. How do we go from 0 to 1? How could the universe have a beginning? In this case, god is the creator and NO it is not a white-bearded dude who does stuff, but maybe an energy, maybe a force. This requires, of course, a beginning. - God could be nature, it could be "life" itself. - God could be everything, and to worship god is to worship creation and existance. In this case, we are god, and by loving god, one loves everything. Etc, etc. You're still opposing reality and fiction, and this is completely out of topic. I'm not talking about fiction, I'm talking about metaphysical concepts. In this case, god represents an idea. He has no face, no body, it's not someone, it's something. Think of the difference between saying "where is love?" and "where is Spiderman?" | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:38 Kukaracha wrote: It is not, because Zeus is a well-defined deity while God is a concept. I see that you have a hard time understanding my point, so here are a few examples I can think of : - God could be the first movement, the first impulse, the first form of existance. How do we go from 0 to 1? How could the universe have a beginning? In this case, god is the creator and NO it is not a white-bearded dude who does stuff, but maybe an energy, maybe a force. This requires, of course, a beginning. - God could be nature, it could be "life" itself. - God could be everything, and to worship god is to worship creation and existance. In this case, we are god, and by loving god, one loves everything. Etc, etc. You're still opposing reality and fiction, and this is completely out of topic. I'm not talking about fiction, I'm talking about metaphysical concepts. In this case, god represents an idea. He has no face, no body, it's not someone, it's something. Think of the difference between saying "where is love?" and "where is Spiderman?" Then why call these already defined concepts 'God'? Why not simply call existence 'existence', and life 'life'? Is 'shit' also God? Is 'cancer' also God? Why not just call shit shit and cancer cancer, and everything everything, and not give it the name God? | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
Anyway, the point is - you stopped talking about religion and started redefining the general definition of religion as the OP had intended, which was that certain religions, such as Christianity, motivate people because they believe in the fictional God character, who threw tantrums and burned down cities for having gay sex and gave people languages because they were working together to build a tower, as set out by the Bible. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:38 Kukaracha wrote: It is not, because Zeus is a well-defined deity while God is a concept. This is exactly right. The most sophisticated conceptions of God are those which would more popularly be understood as atheistic. The long tradition of theological dispute is not an argument about nothing - it's just philosophy under an older paradigm and vocabulary. There is a real "thing" that people were talking about when they were talking about God. I highly recommend that you read the Analects of Confucius. It contains a highly sophisticated atheistic ethical philosophy. If you are interested in God as the metaphysical primitive, you might find the Daodejing to be enlightening. I also recommend the Zhuangzi, which has a more epistemological focus, but it might offer some clarity as well. These texts are a little enigmatic but once understood their significance is expressed very elegantly. I'm not unfortunately reading them in the original  edit: Then why call these already defined concepts 'God'? Why not simply call existence 'existence', and life 'life'? Is 'shit' also God? Is 'cancer' also God? Why not just call shit shit and cancer cancer, and everything everything, and not give it the name God? God is not everything (the term is even equivocal. Is it everything or every thing, and what is the difference?) The Way that can be experienced is not true; The world that can be constructed is not true. The Way manifests all that happens and may happen; The world represents all that exists and may exist. On February 19 2012 19:38 zalz wrote: I don't hope that we return to some marxist-agricultural society that can't prevent polio. Would you settle for one that could? | ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 Posts
On February 19 2012 18:25 Azera wrote: For people like me, an Atheist, what motivation is there? Learning about the Universe... Do we seek to educate ourselves because we simply love learning? Do we learn with an inquisitive mind, a yearning heart, the burning desire in our heart to better ourselves so we can make a positive impact on the world? It seems to be much easier to use god as a motivation because it's just that simple. You don't have to find out for yourself what you really want to do, just do whatever the holy text tells you to (or your parents). My pastor spoke at one of my weekly Bible studies about "music being the speaking of the soul", but then he turned it around to talk about science. He said that the study of science is pursuing something that created a sense of awe inside of you. Sounds similar to your questioning of the Universe - it's utterly implausible, and yet it simply is! I believe this is the closest an atheist/agnostic can come to the concept of a higher power without a leap of faith. I study catalysis as a grad student, and the more I learn and the deeper I go I get a feeling of great awe. Here are substances in nature specifically designed to facilitate alternate, more energy-efficient means of chemical reactions. They've existed longer than we can imagine and work in ways that researchers barely understand themselves. It is truly remarkable! And yes, it is definitely easier to have a parent run your life. I don't think that's what holy texts do, though. I hear stories all the time about people who pray about it and feel as though it's something they should do, but it's not often I hear someone say "the book of Hosea told me I need to be an exterminator!". Sure, there are the establishment of ideals, though one doesn't have to follow them all to a "T" and there's certainly a lot of debate over which is right and wrong. No one can live up to the impossibly high ideals set in the Bible solely focusing on how well you maintain the various precepts will end up being nothing short of depressing. | ||
|
foshrodah
Sweden12 Posts
Moreover its pretty obvious you dont actually need any religion to be a good human being, infact its pretty obvious that even the believers themselves are good human beings without the aid of god or the bible, just look at how every single christian out there cherry picks things from the bible, picking and choosing what best represents their own innate morals. If I could summarize religion into one sentance, it would be this: Religion is obsolete. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://rachelsale.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/archologies.gif) | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  47094Calm  4628Jaedong 2004GuemChi 1414Shuttle 1037actioN 606Mini 569Soma 561EffOrt 551Rush  443[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games B2W.Neo890 crisheroes497 hiko296 Hui .281 DeMusliM208 Mew2King86 ArmadaUGS40 MindelVK11 ZerO(Twitch)11 |
|
OSC
Demi vs Mixu
Nicoract vs TBD
Babymarine vs MindelVK
ForJumy vs TBD
Shameless vs Percival
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV 2025
SC Evo League
BSL 21
Sziky vs OyAji
Gypsy vs eOnzErG
OSC
Solar vs Creator
ByuN vs Gerald
Percival vs Babymarine
Moja vs Krystianer
EnDerr vs ForJumy
sebesdes vs Nicoract
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV 2025
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
