We have created alien life!

[Tapeworm]

And your like -dude what?  - lol. You truly are a pussy.  I mean you know like the thing chicks have -

Dude.  What?

[Archer77]

Sure, people react to things in all sorts of kooky ways.  Doesn't mean there are religious implications inherent in the findings.  It's just people bending themselves out of shape.  Like those who think The Theory of Relativity means moral relativity and I'm like



Science isn't responsible for how athiests/christians/whoever react and how emotional they become.  It just wants the facts.

I agree. People become upset over a lot of things but that doesn't mean there is any objective to truth to their objection.   

[syntaxmachine]

Science proves z w/o disproving y?  
No, I do think the horses flied.  
How am I become the religion defender guy?

Yeah, displacing God from the gaps can errode particular religions' credibility but I don't equate that to proof of non-existence.  Neither do I have data that demonstrates divine existence, so that's why my default position of non-belief.

It's always the same with this stuff.  The athiests claim the science supports thier position, and the religious claim it supports theirs.  I'm unable to draw any inferences about something super-physical from explanations of physical phenomena.  Reasoning that tries to do so strikes me as unsound.

I cheated by using the word "prove," (too strong) but the point remains: religions -- especially the Abrahamic ones -- have for hundreds of years made claims about what we now call the 'physical' or 'natural' world that have been rendered false beyond a reasonable doubt. This reflects on the probable truth of these doctrines, which in turn allows us to reflect on the probable truth of the hypothesized super-physical entities as described by those doctrines (e.g., if a religion claims a super-physical entity is on call answering our prayers, we can dispute the existence of that entity with the knowledge that prayer doesn't work).

tl;dr Whilst we can't "prove" the non-existence of a super-physical entity, we can dispute doctrines that posit super-physical influence in the world and thus render specific conceptions of super-physical entities false (e.g., the prayer-answering kind); further, we can cast aside super-physical entities since there is, at present, no need to posit them to explain anything -- rather like invisible gnomes.

[SF1900]

Well I think you're a good egg too.

I'm going through an unfortunate period now in which i'm completely ending all discussion with a select group on this board that I've been speaking with for years now.   I won't name names....they know who they are.  I don't prefer it but it's necessary for me. I keep the board members in general in my prayers and a few I speak to privately I pray for specifically.  Lot of pain on this board.  A lot of folks that belief that have spoken to me privately.   I pray the Lord raises them up for his divine purposes.  For others that disagree but are respectful (such as yourself) communication is wide open with me and welcome.

I'm going through an unfortunate period now in which i'm completely ending all discussion with a select group on this board that I've been speaking with for years now.

So, in other words, you're throwing a temper tantrum because we do not believe what you do? You want us to roll over and just believe exactly what you do? Are you sure you're an adult because you act like a 4-year old.

Lot of pain on this board.

Why is there a lot of pain on this board? Because we do not believe in God? So those that do not believe in God are in a lot of pain? It must feel wonderful to tell yourself lies in order to justify your belief system.

[Tapeworm]

I cheated by using the word "prove," (too strong) but the point remains: religions -- especially the Abrahamic ones -- have for hundreds of years made claims about what we now call the 'physical' or 'natural' world that have been rendered false beyond a reasonable doubt. This reflects on the probable truth of these doctrines, which in turn allows us to reflect on the probable truth of the hypothesized super-physical entities as described by those doctrines (e.g., if a religion claims a super-physical entity is on call answering our prayers, we can dispute the existence of that entity with the knowledge that prayer doesn't work).

tl;dr Whilst we can't "prove" the non-existence of a super-physical entity, we can dispute doctrines that posit super-physical influence in the world and thus render specific conceptions of super-physical entities false (e.g., the prayer-answering kind); further, we can cast aside super-physical entities since there is, at present, no need to posit them to explain anything -- rather like invisible gnomes.

Not so fast, now.  Yeah, particular claims made by particular religions can be pretty well dismissed by facts.  On the other hand, purely secular misconceptions can be corrected by facts from the same source.  (Don't press me for examples because I'm too lazy but secular people cling to belief systems too.  Probably when they're profiting in some way.  Godless bastards.)  I'm hammering on the agendalessness[osity] of science here more than anything.  Not it's most eloquent advocate, perhaps.

If I'm gonna play True Believer, I'd respond that those claims which are disproven were a misrepresentation of The Word, or that while something is unlikely, like parting an inland sea, you can't prove there wasn't a confluence of events which made it happen.  I don't see it as much of a pressure point though, since I'm not a True Believer.

I've got my own bias and don't much see organized religion's dogma as The Word.  Consequently, I can't make the stretch from science trumping religion on a single point of contention to eliminating any and all non-materialist points of view.  As you know, I'm kinda hazy to the point of spiritualism when it comes to things like the nature of identity, consciousness, and volition.  It's probably just ego but I'm not sold on the whole 'bag of chemicals, suitable structure, brain equals mind' thing, so I still resist an exclusively scientific reduction.

I rambled a bit but reckon science ought to simply present itself and let individuals draw their own conclusions about the divine.  On this issue and gene work in general, I don't see anything that indicates design vs evolution one way or another.

[Icelord]

I'm going through an unfortunate period now in which i'm completely ending all discussion with a select group on this board that I've been speaking with for years now.

So, in other words, you're throwing a temper tantrum because we do not believe what you do? You want us to roll over and just believe exactly what you do? Are you sure you're an adult because you act like a 4-year old.

Lot of pain on this board.

He's transitioning away from the forums. I think he brought this up a couple of weeks ago. Given the things he considers interesting/important to talk about and the backlash they usually engender, I can entirely back him up in this decision. It doesn't seem like a kneejerk reflexive tantrum from what I'm seeing. More like his GB career is winding down.

Why is there a lot of pain on this board? Because we do not believe in God? So those that do not believe in God are in a lot of pain? It must feel wonderful to tell yourself lies in order to justify your belief system.

I'm almost positive that he doesn't mean it that way. On here's there's depressives, drunks, socially maladjusted ex-convicts, stalkers, drug-abusers, and generally unhappy people who are relatively young but aren't doing what they want in life, and come here to talk about it or ask for advice. It's fair to say that may be true of other websites as well, but it's hard to ignore the confluence of collective disappointment that prevails in the users here, myself included.

[Tapeworm]

I can't hate on the MOS.  Our beliefs aren't the same but his wit is second to none and he seems like a good man for all these years.  Can't see him ever turning a blind eye to someone's suffering or letting his ego overcome his reason, no matter what his mood.  I can't say the same about myself.

[syntaxmachine]

On the other hand, purely secular misconceptions can be corrected by facts from the same source.  (Don't press me for examples because I'm too lazy but secular people cling to belief systems too.  Probably when they're profiting in some way.  Godless bastards.)  I'm hammering on the agendalessness[osity] of science here more than anything.  Not it's most eloquent advocate, perhaps.

My good man, I was merely responding to your claim that there aren't any "anti-religious conclusions" to be drawn from scientific findings. Certainly, there are excesses on the part of secularists as well.

Still, since most secularists have some stipulation in their doctrine to 'accept whatever science says,' it's hard to say science can correct secular misconceptions -- if they are sticking to their doctrine, there shouldn't be any inconsistency. The same can't be said for the prototypical religious disciple.

Meanwhile, I don't know whether science is inherently agenda free. It seems to me that science wants to understand the world in explicitly and exclusively natural terms, something antithetical to religion -- that might be construed as an agenda.

I've got my own bias and don't much see organized religion's dogma as The Word.  Consequently, I can't make the stretch from science trumping religion on a single point of contention to eliminating any and all non-materialist points of view. 

Point well taken. There isn't universal agreement that science leads to a materialist point of view; there is room to maneuver here. But that doesn't mean we have to be opinion-free on the import of scientific findings for religion.

As you know, I'm kinda hazy to the point of spiritualism when it comes to things like the nature of identity, consciousness, and volition.  It's probably just ego but I'm not sold on the whole 'bag of chemicals, suitable structure, brain equals mind' thing, so I still resist an exclusively scientific reduction.

Very good; you are free to satisfy your preferences as you please. The verdict is out on whether full-blown reductionism is an appropriate way to understand scientific findings.

[King Shizzo]

We have the tech to create life. That neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god.

God to me would be like watching one of those electric football games from the 70's/80's. He sets the field, turns on the machine, and lets the figures move on their destined path.

If that path leads us to death by technology, well............

[calfzilla]

We have the tech to create life. That neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god.

God to me would be like watching one of those electric football games from the 70's/80's. He sets the field, turns on the machine, and lets the figures move on their destined path.

If that path leads us to death by technology, well............

Happy 20,000 post shitso.

[Icelord]

We have the tech to create life. That neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god.

God to me would be like watching one of those electric football games from the 70's/80's. He sets the field, turns on the machine, and lets the figures move on their destined path.

If that path leads us to death by technology, well............

Problem with that is almost every religion makes god out to be not just all-powerful but also willing and likely to intervene divinely to strike down at those who defy His commandments/beliefs/Surahs/etc. The fact that no god has yet to do anything in response to any of the millions of evil acts that take place daily is what most atheists consider the litmus test for religion's lack of reality. Not the fact that men have achieved scientific breakthroughs that were supposedly god's sole responsibility.

[SF1900]

He's transitioning away from the forums. I think he brought this up a couple of weeks ago. Given the things he considers interesting/important to talk about and the backlash they usually engender, I can entirely back him up in this decision. It doesn't seem like a kneejerk reflexive tantrum from what I'm seeing. More like his GB career is winding down.
I'm almost positive that he doesn't mean it that way. On here's there's depressives, drunks, socially maladjusted ex-convicts, stalkers, drug-abusers, and generally unhappy people who are relatively young but aren't doing what they want in life, and come here to talk about it or ask for advice. It's fair to say that may be true of other websites as well, but it's hard to ignore the confluence of collective disappointment that prevails in the users here, myself included.

MOS has displayed, in my opinion, what appears to be very childish behavior. Debates often become very heated. Even in university based settings, debates may become heated. No one runs off in a hissy fit. I can guarantee you that if we all believed as he did, he would not be transitioning away from the forum. He is only transitioning away because he is constantly being challenged. Perhaps sometimes too harshly, however as stated, debates sometimes do reach this point.

Yes, but this board is known for its negativity and pessimism. I have a strange suspicion that many of the online personas on here are much different in real life. There may be a lot of pain, but most people that post here are just trying to get a rise out of people by being cynical or an asshole.

[Icelord]

^

All good points.

Problem with Christians and other religious people is their religious commitment forces them to take offense when their virtues are intrusively questioned or attacked. Because it becomes part of their identity. If you do it to an an atheist for being an atheist, the'll just laugh and tell you to be less uptight.

[The Scott]

MOS has displayed, in my opinion, what appears to be very childish behavior. Debates often become very heated. Even in university based settings, debates may become heated. No one runs off in a hissy fit. I can guarantee you that if we all believed as he did, he would not be transitioning away from the forum. He is only transitioning away because he is constantly being challenged. Perhaps sometimes too harshly, however as stated, debates sometimes do reach this point.

Yes, but this board is known for its negativity and pessimism. I have a strange suspicion that many of the online personas on here are much different in real life. There may be a lot of pain, but most people that post here are just trying to get a rise out of people by being cynical or an asshole.

MOS is a good man.  I am the same here as I am in person with regard to pretty much everything including my faith.  I have and will continue to speak with anyone regarding my faith that so desires, be it Atheists, asssholists and especially those I consider lying dirtbag ministers.  I can respect a difference of opinion and lord knows I have them too.  I loath the false doctrines of Islam, LDS and Catholicism.  Those that are assholists and the aforementioned false ministers are contemptible  and  I have no problem giving either respect or verbal lambasting where due.

My faith is in the Christ.  Jesus of Nazareth. Not the pope nor some worthless imam or the like.  The Gospel is what I base that faith upon.  If people don't care for it, so be it.

Be well.  Or if you prefer, not.  I prefer the former for all concerned. 

[Icelord]

MOS is a good man.  I am the same here as I am in person with regard to pretty much everything including my faith.  I have and will continue to speak with anyone regarding my faith that so desires, be it Atheists, asssholists and especially those I consider lying dirtbag ministers.  I can respect a difference of opinion and lord knows I have them too.  I loath the false doctrines of Islam, LDS and Catholicism.  Those that are assholists and the aforementioned false ministers are contemptible  and  I have no problem giving either respect or verbal lambasting where due.

My faith is in the Christ.  Jesus of Nazareth. Not the pope nor some worthless imam or the like.  The Gospel is what I base that faith upon.  If people don't care for it, so be it.

Be well.  Or if you prefer, not.  I prefer the former for all concerned.  

I can't be a Christian because other Christians ruin it for me. It suffices to talk to a "born again" type or to hear the hand wringing and waving in a megachurch where the congregation is in the hypnotic vice-like grip of the suit-wearing pastor to turn me off the people who believe in it. The shit they spew about everything and anything under the sun makes me want to just pretend half the country doesn't exist except in the movies.

I'd have to create my own Christianity and ban everyone else from being involved in it. But that goes against the teachings of the faith itself.

[SF1900]

^

All good points.

Problem with Christians and other religious people is their religious commitment forces them to take offense when their virtues are intrusively questioned or attacked. Because it becomes part of their identity. If you do it to an an atheist for being an atheist, the'll just laugh and tell you to be less uptight.

My issue is this:

People are CONSTANTLY be challenged in every sphere of academia. Biologists, chemists, sociologist, psychologists, literature, philosophers, mathematicians, , anthropologists, art and music historians, etc, etc. Now some of these people throw a hissy fit when challenged. However, no one is better at throwing a hissy fit than a religious person. I have been to numerous debates where it got very heated! No one ran off crying, saying, "You're taking away my rights (religious people love to say their religious rights are being taken away)." Religious people are notorious for getting all bent out of shape when people challenge their belief system. The thing is is that as time goes on, religion does not hold the special privilege it used to (hundreds of years ago you can get hanged for talking out against the church). Times are changing and religious people do not know how to handle it. They run off like MOS when challenged.

As for religion becoming part of their identity, this also happens in other areas as well. Hardcore biologists, chemists, writers, psychologists, all have very strong identities associated with their occupation. As stated, they do not whine and complain like MOS when challenged and run off (like most religious people).

At the end of the day, I would probably sit down and have a beer with MOS. I do not dislike the guy. However, I have every right to challenge his belief system if I want to.

[The Scott]

I can't be a Christian because other Christians ruin it for me. It suffices to talk to a "born again" type or to hear the hand wringing and waving in a megachurch where the congregation is in the hypnotic vice-like grip of the suit-wearing pastor to turn me off the people who believe in it. The shit they spew about everything and anything under the sun makes me want to just pretend half the country doesn't exist except in the movies.

I'd have to create my own Christianity and ban everyone else from being involved in it. But that goes against the teachings of the faith itself.

I have found that I cannot "read into" my faith.  I can discern between right and wrong and this long before ever accepting the Christ.  It is not difficult to do as Christ commanded of us but the problem for all of us is that it goes against our nature to be good. To be kind.  To be forgiving.  To love the sinner and hate the sin.   

An example of how I deal with some things "thrown" at me if you will, by non-believers. 

"Do you think the Earth is 6,000 years old?"  - Nope.  And I really don't care how old it really is!  Not a concern of mine.

"What about dinosaurs, hmmmmmm?"  -  What about 'em?  I'm just ecstatic they're extinct and we're not!

"What about ___________ sexuality?"  -  Not for me and I refuse to condone it.  Don't care for my answer?  What're you a heterophobe?   


And the list could go on but I don't wish to bore anyone more than I already have.  My faith does not have "all the answers".  Rather it has the answer to the  one question that concerns me and anyone else that thinks, not just feels, as I do. 

Jesus never  harmed anyone.  Contrast that with Mohammed and a myriad of Popes, priests, imams and dictators both atheist and false christian.  Man's inhumanity to mankind is his own doing or rather undoing. 

Be well.

[Icelord]

Sadly, you represent about 5% of Christians. Which is why it's a polluted religion. Sadly. Maybe when it first began to be written 2000 years ago, it was pure and consisted solely of those who adhered to it the way it had been intended to be. It's been warped out of all proportion by bigotry, sectarianism, cultism, violence, greed, etc. all done in Jesus's name.

[The Scott]

Sadly, you represent about 5% of Christians. Which is why it's a polluted religion. Sadly. Maybe when it first began to be written 2000 years ago, it was pure and consisted solely of those who adhered to it the way it had been intended to be. It's been warped out of all proportion by bigotry, sectarianism, cultism, violence, greed, etc. all done in Jesus's name.

Well, I really don't think any of us knows what percentage of the followers of the Nazarene I may or may not be indicative of, but I suspect it to be more than a mere 5%. 

Violence done by men, no matter in whose name it is done is done by men.  You can say it is done in the name of Jesus but if you look at what the Christ taught you would know (and doubtless already do) that it is not of Christ.  Greed and the rest?  All done in the name of men.

If it is bigoted to abhor sin, then I am a bigot but I think rather the term bigotry is used by those who desire only that their sins be made somehow sinless.  Their desires,  no matter how base they may be, be made pure.  Lies turned into truth.  Wrong is right and all this and more in the name of men.

It is no different.  Men doing what they do for their own desires and naming them good.   Christ condemns such and that is why the world turns its back on Him.  There may well come a time when that which you call wrong will be deemed righteous and unless you bend your knee they will break your spirit and then your back.  It has happened before and may well happen again.

One of the reasons I believe Christ to be true is that Apostles such as Peter died for their belief in Him.  If that belief were based upon just collecting tithes and reciting a party line he did not truly follow why would he die for that faith?  Why would he request to be  crucified upside down (a request made because Peter felt he did not deserve to die exactly as did Jesus)?  No man is so insane as to die for cause he knows false.  I know I wouldn't.

The Apostles knew Jesus.  They walked with Him.  Were witness to His works and teachings.  If those were false, then they would have denied Him upon pain of death.   They did not.

I have said before that I am not come to make any wear the same shoes as I, much less any shoes.   Our paths may differ but our final destination is the same.  We shall just have to wait and see what comes next.

As always, be well.

[Icelord]

I only see things in terms of advantages and disadvantages. I guess that's why I'm an atheist. 

[The Scott]

I only see things in terms of advantages and disadvantages. I guess that's why I'm an atheist. 

Nothing wrong with that.  It is your choice and your right to make it. 

[Icelord]

Nothing wrong with that.  It is your choice and your right to make it. 

I wish god would strike me down. Why does he have to be so magnanimous and forgiving all the time?

[240 is Back]

creating life is easy peasy

PTPS

[Radical Plato]

When I saw the title of this thread, I expected to see this when I opened it.

[Man of Steel]

I can't hate on the MOS.  Our beliefs aren't the same but his wit is second to none and he seems like a good man for all these years.  Can't see him ever turning a blind eye to someone's suffering or letting his ego overcome his reason, no matter what his mood.  I can't say the same about myself.

This is correct.  Even those that openly despise my beliefs, if they called on me with a need I'd help them the best I'm able to.