Curse

Thanas · Sep 07, 2005, 03:12 PM // 15:12

Theres no point discussing this with you because you fail to understand the broader picture. You believe your reality to be the only true one. You do not have to scope to imagine that perhaps the universe is infinitely more complicated than you suspect.

Thanas · Sep 07, 2005, 03:14 PM // 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Do you "believe" in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No? Using your own logic you should, as well as everything imagined or not yet imagined.

Of course I do not believe in it, but what I am saying is that you don't have to believe in it, but you must accept that you cannot dissprove it, for this reason you never be certain and thus faith on some level is required.

MSecorsky · Sep 07, 2005, 03:26 PM // 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanas

Theres no point discussing this with you because you fail to understand the broader picture. You believe your reality to be the only true one. You do not have to scope to imagine that perhaps the universe is infinitely more complicated than you suspect.

On the contrary, I give the universe credit for being nearly unimaginable in it's complexities. You ever delve into quantum physics? If you claim to truly understand it, I'd be inclined to call you a liar.

However, complexity + unknown != supernatural beings pulling the strings.

It just means that we have a lot more to learn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thanas

Of course I do not believe in it, but what I am saying is that you don't have to believe in it, but you must accept that you cannot dissprove it, for this reason you never be certain and thus faith on some level is required.

But here's where you get it completely backwards. The burden of proof falls upon the one making the positive assertion, not on others to prove him wrong. If you make claim "A", you need to provide the evidence supporting that claim. It's not my responsibility to provide proof that there is no evidence.

This is the single greatest fault in your line of argument.

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 07, 2005, 03:54 PM // 15:54

I used to be a Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Labs. I am also a Roman Catholic. My field of study was High-Temperature Superconductivity which requires a fair deal of Quantum Mechanics.

It might interest you to know that there are many practicing Physicists that identify themselves as Christian or one of several other faiths. Why? It's because the realm of science is about recognizing that there are more questions than answers at any given time. Much that is true we will not know in our lifetimes so the balance of our beliefs is made up through faith.

Einstein himself had faith that quantum mechanics was inconsistent with his personal understanding of the universe ("God does not play dice with the universe.") but he made some of the most noteable contributions to that field. Any good scientist won't bury his/her observations and discoveries in order to preserve the integrity of their faith - Because part of faith is knowing you could be wrong and accepting it.

For me, there's nothing wrong with faith. Blind faith is dangerous, though.

Some day we might discover solid proof that "God" doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that believers were completely misguided until then - it just means we were wrong and, hopefully, can adapt. Since the fields of study in Physics don't really cover "spiritual" questions there is no real conflict at the moment.

First we must define our terms:
An Agnostic believes in only what is proven. "Until I see proof in a God I can't believe in one."
An Athiest believes that no God exists. Period.
Many times people use the term "Athiest" when what they really mean is "Agnotstic." This is why it can be said that "Athiesm" requires a faith that God doesn't exist. For example, an extremist athiest might not even want to look at evidence that conflicts with his/her beliefs (just as extremist religious folk).

You see, simple religious faith doesn't require us to stop asking questions. If there is a God (or equivalent) that is responsible for creation - then who knows how He/She/It/They went about it? If we were made by a God (or equivalent) then we were, evidently, made with a sense of curiosity and intelligence. We were made for research and skepticism.

Am I saying you need to be religious, too? Of course not!

"Why have faith in God at all?", you might ask. For most of us, religion is a source of community, an acknowledgement of mystery in life and one common method of recognizing that love and responsibility have value - that life isn't just a biophysical event. But that's just one way. I recognize that you don't need religion to tell us that killing each other isn't socially constructive - but it's one way. And it's a way that can be understood by children as well as adults - the uneducated and the over-educated.

"Religion" isn't for everybody. But it isn't necessarily in conflict with "science." Often, the ones who assume they exist in conflict, in my personal experience, are people who are neither practicing scientists nor practicing religious folk.

MSecorsky · Sep 07, 2005, 04:13 PM // 16:13

Very well put, Xue Yi. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to pick a couple nits though.

An Athiest believes that no God exists. Period.

Unfortunately, this definition would mean that someone that believes in a different god is an atheist. An atheist just simply doesn't believe in the existance of gods, be it the capital "G" or not.

For me, there's nothing wrong with faith. Blind faith is dangerous, though.

Quoted for wisdom.

Some day we might discover solid proof that "God" doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that believers were completely misguided until then - it just means we were wrong and, hopefully, can adapt.

Can never happen. Again, you can never prove the negative, that God or any other gods do not exist. You can only prove existance, not non-existance.

"Religion" isn't for everybody. But it isn't necessarily in conflict with "science."

They're completely different areas. Science deals solely in the physical, the natural world. Religion by definition is not science, and true, there shouldn't be any conflict. My original beef was with those that are trying to force a particular religious belief into the science classes, where it obviously doesn't belong. The topic may have strayed from that original line of thought...

"Why have faith in God at all?", you might ask.

Actually, no. That's your right and your choice. Also a right that I would defend to the end supporting, even if I don't share it. Religion has done a lot of good in the world (and when misused, a lot of evil).

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 07, 2005, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

An Athiest believes that no God exists. Period.

Unfortunately, this definition would mean that someone that believes in a different god is an atheist. An atheist just simply doesn't believe in the existance of gods, be it the capital "G" or not.

Geez. You are nitpicking.. LOL. For the purpose of brevity I simplified my words. Of course it doesn't just apply to the Christian God - it can apply to Gaia/Allah/or Satan for that matter. Nitpicker!

To be fair - people who argue against the existance of a "Supreme Being" tend to target Christianity - they don't harrass practitioners of Judiasm, Islam or Wikka for that matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Some day we might discover solid proof that "God" doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that believers were completely misguided until then - it just means we were wrong and, hopefully, can adapt.

To be interpreted in spirit, not word. This applies to evidence in the problems with Creationism, the Shroud of Turin or anything else. I just made that example to emphasize the idea. But, I agree, it'll never happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

My original beef was with those that are trying to force a particular religious belief into the science classes, where it obviously doesn't belong. The topic may have strayed from that original line of thought...

Now there's an understatement!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Religion has done a lot of good in the world (and when misused, a lot of evil).

As has science.

Thanas · Sep 07, 2005, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

But here's where you get it completely backwards. The burden of proof falls upon the one making the positive assertion, not on others to prove him wrong. If you make claim "A", you need to provide the evidence supporting that claim. It's not my responsibility to provide proof that there is no evidence.

This is the single greatest fault in your line of argument.

Please go into more detail on this, so I can see exactly where you believe I'm wrong.

Wolvenbear · Sep 07, 2005, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Xue Yi Lang:

First we must define our terms:
An Agnostic believes in only what is proven. "Until I see proof in a God I can't believe in one."
An Athiest believes that no God exists. Period.
Many times people use the term "Athiest" when what they really mean is "Agnotstic." This is why it can be said that "Athiesm" requires a faith that God doesn't exist. For example, an extremist athiest might not even want to look at evidence that conflicts with his/her beliefs (just as extremist religious folk).

Thank you for clarifying that. I was going to write something very similar until I read your post.
------------------------------

Wow... lots of food for thought here. Really quick to avoid the nitpickers and flamers: I was raised in a Southern Baptist household but consider myself to be a nondenominational Christian of sorts. I constantly re-examine my own belief structure with the understanding that when all is said and done, I could be wrong. As a matter of fact Christians, Jews, Pagans, Satanists, Atheists, Wiccans, Islamics, Buddhists, Taoists, Animists, Spiritists... we could all be wrong. Wouldn't that be a killer?

For purposes of brevity I will use terms I am familiar with and since I am male I will assume the masculine for any question of gender. Please feel free to substitue she/it/they where applicable.

Here is the problem: many people mistake pure religion (simply put: belief in the unseen) with zealous fanaticism (the idea that any without one's own belief structure is incorrect). Let's take a look at the September 11th destruction. A few Muslim extremists hijacked airplanes and committed horrific acts of terrorism. According to others of their faction, they died for a holy cause and were immediately granted a place in heaven. This is what we see on TV. This is the kind of horror story we pass on to our friends, family, and children. Terrible in itself, this is made worse because it was done in the name of "religion". The TV doesn't tell of the estimated 90% of the Muslim population that believes such acts of terrorism are pure and simple murder. All we hear about are the few fanatics who scream their actions are because of their religion, and assume that (or all) religion is bad/evil/wrong. In the assumption lies the error.

Now here's something guaranteed to get flames from both side of the fence. What if science is actually proving religion? According to many religions, God created the universe. It does not say how, it simply says that he did it. Science says that all matter began in a microscopic point which exploded with a Big Bang. The matter formed and reformed into the stars/planets we know today. Truth be told there is no evidence to support either of these claims. Now, now, calm down science mongers. The fact that the universe is constantly expanding does not prove the Bang. It does support it, but support is not proof. Same for you Bible bashers. I do believe in Creationism, but except for God there was no one else around when that happened. You can't record it, you can't prove it. And so we take it on faith that one of these events happened. Here's the what if.... What if God created all the matter of the universe in one microscopic point, and exploded it outward? What if both these beliefs are true?

Psychological studies support the thought that religion provides people with feelings of well being. These feelings help to alleviate stress, increase efficiency, and encourage folks to be productive members of their social unit. I believe there is a God, that heaven and hell exist, and that there are angels and demons (and other unseen creatures as well). Because of this I follow a code of morality based on these beliefs. An atheist believes that none of this exists. Does that make me a better person than him? No. I've met both atheists and religious folk that would give you the shirt off their backs if you needed. Religion is not the cause of morality, but morality does fit into religion. So what if I'm wrong? If the atheist is right then it doesn't matter; I'm going to end up a pile of dust anyway. It's no big deal. Here's the clincher: what if I'm right?

I think faith is a good thing. But to repeat a previous poster, blind faith is not. It is important whether you put your faith in science, religion, or both, that you constantly examine your belief structure and adapt as necessary. Science is always making new observations and developing new theories. To believe that all are correct (with or without evidence) is blind faith. There are hundreds of religions floating around the world. Not all can be correct. As a matter of fact, all of them might be incorrect. It all comes down to gathering up all arguments and evidence and deciding for yourself what you believe to be true. Hurray for free will!

And that is what it's really all about.

Divinitys Creature · Sep 07, 2005, 07:40 PM // 19:40

I have read about a bunch of physicists and other scientists becoming religious proponents after a lifetime of science. We don't know why there was a big bang, we don't know what was there before etc. Could well have been the will of God AFAIK. I don't think religion and science need to be mutually exclusive. So long as people don't refer to religious texts in scientific papers LOL.

Thanas · Sep 07, 2005, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

This is a horrible analogy. Absolutely horrible.

Where's the testing? The hard data? The repeatability of the tests by others resulting in the same results? Where's the means for theory to be modified as more data comes in, or to be altoghether discarded if the evidence supports discarding the theory?

You may have studied physics, but you seem to have forgotten science.

This anology says what I want it to say. It is not horrible as you put it. You are not looking at it properly that is all. I am trying to present you with a simple picture. What I'm trying to say here is that in the act of observing the mass moving outside the booth the person inside gains more knowledge on that mass, observation is a form of interaction. As he see's more of the mass he may change his perception, however the sum of all his observations thus far have led him to the conclusion that what he see's is a snake. Through observing the universe around us and interacting with it we have grown in our knowledge to the point we are at today. Validation of scientific theory and hard evidence are all bundled up in the "observation of the mass". As time passes the observer in the booth will modify his truth. However his truth will never be complete. It may seem to tend sometimes in a particular direction, but who's to say it could not change at any given point. His whole perception of the world could change at any given moment as could ours. Without a knowledge of the whole we rely on faith. Why is this so difficult for you to see?

Thanas · Sep 07, 2005, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

But here's where you get it completely backwards. The burden of proof falls upon the one making the positive assertion, not on others to prove him wrong. If you make claim "A", you need to provide the evidence supporting that claim. It's not my responsibility to provide proof that there is no evidence.

This is the single greatest fault in your line of argument.

This statement was refering entirely to me. I shall rephrase it.

Of course I do not believe in it, but what I am saying is that I don't have to believe in it, but I must accept that I cannot dissprove it, for this reason I can never be certain and thus faith on some level is required.

This is the crux of what I'm saying. Read it carefully.

Mistress Eyahl · Sep 07, 2005, 09:53 PM // 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanas

Anemia is linked to a variety of deficiencies. However for the most part its linked to a low red blood cell count i.e. reduced number of properly functioning red blood cells. I very much doubt sleeping alone would counter the anemia induced fatigue. Fatigue is a lack of energy and of motivation and is not the same as drowsiness. Secondly although vitamin A does indeed help bone growth, too much will cause side effects. High doses of vitiman A will cause weakness and vomiting.

Why do you have to argue EVERYTHING anyone types. Ffs, maybe the whole sunlight thing was completely made up by people, or maybe I'm COMPLETELY wrong in what I typed. It was just an idea will you stop being so damn aggressive. Your opinion isn't needed all the time when it doesn't actually benefit the point.

All you end up doing is shooting down people and making them feel stupid. Congratulations.

Thanas · Sep 07, 2005, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress Eyahl

Why do you have to argue EVERYTHING anyone types. Ffs, maybe the whole sunlight thing was completely made up by people, or maybe I'm COMPLETELY wrong in what I typed. It was just an idea will you stop being so damn aggressive. Your opinion isn't needed all the time when it doesn't actually benefit the point.

All you end up doing is shooting down people and making them feel stupid. Congratulations.

This is a debate forum. You will notice I moved from your thread to here to debate. Look in other threads. I don't argue all the time. Also I'm not attacking you but your point. There is a big difference. Please don't take offence. However just to remind you, you are ussually the aggressive one. I never said you were stupid and I don't think you are. I wouldn't say that. In fact have I ever called you stupid?

Mistress Eyahl · Sep 07, 2005, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanas

This is a debate forum. You will notice I moved from your thread to here to debate. Look in other threads. I don't argue all the time. Also I'm not attacking you but your point. There is a big difference. Please don't take offence. However just to remind you, you are ussually the aggressive one. I never said you were stupid and I don't think you are. I wouldn't say that. In fact have I ever called you stupid?

I guess I am not used to everything I say being questioned by a perfect stranger, when I am not defending what I say, saying it's the ultimate truth or even defending that it happened.

Surely for a debate to work, one person needs to believe one thing, while someone argues their point of view on it. As I don't believe everything I said it true, it seems fruitless to point out where I might be wrong.

And forgive me, I must be losing my sight. Seemed you were willing to question everything anyone says. I posted my message in reply to a post about vampires, I don't remember talking to you. Just a bit sick of everything I say, you have an opinion on. Remind me to post in threads you don't go to in future.

Mistress Eyahl · Sep 07, 2005, 11:32 PM // 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

But here's where you get it completely backwards. The burden of proof falls upon the one making the positive assertion, not on others to prove him wrong. If you make claim "A", you need to provide the evidence supporting that claim. It's not my responsibility to provide proof that there is no evidence.

This is the single greatest fault in your line of argument.

This is completely true. Same sort of innocent until proven guilty.

It's not up to one person to prove someone wrong otherwise everything they say is mandatory. Of course, no-one can prove god exists but you CAN prove that people have faith in god. That is enough.

Thanas · Sep 08, 2005, 07:48 AM // 07:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress Eyahl

I guess I am not used to everything I say being questioned by a perfect stranger, when I am not defending what I say, saying it's the ultimate truth or even defending that it happened.

Surely for a debate to work, one person needs to believe one thing, while someone argues their point of view on it. As I don't believe everything I said it true, it seems fruitless to point out where I might be wrong.

And forgive me, I must be losing my sight. Seemed you were willing to question everything anyone says. I posted my message in reply to a post about vampires, I don't remember talking to you. Just a bit sick of everything I say, you have an opinion on. Remind me to post in threads you don't go to in future.

However other people take what you say to be logical, so I point out the flaws. You also invited people to attack your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress Eyahl

Feel free to argue with me, I'm not holding a sign saying vampires are real so..

Please don't judge me because I argue with you. I argue with others as well. Its nothing personal. As I have already said, there are many threads where I have posted where arguing is non-existant.

Guillaume De Sonoma · Sep 08, 2005, 07:51 AM // 07:51

where's pie we need to lighten the mood here

Thanas · Sep 08, 2005, 07:54 AM // 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress Eyahl

This is completely true. Same sort of innocent until proven guilty.

It's not up to one person to prove someone wrong otherwise everything they say is mandatory. Of course, no-one can prove god exists but you CAN prove that people have faith in god. That is enough.

Just to say, he misread my statement. It was written badly and thus subject to mis-interpretation. Only the statement he makes concerning the later, edited version should be considered. Yes I agree that no one can prove God exists, faith is required. My argument has never been based around proving the existance of God, but the existance of faith, specifically the faith that Atheists have in their beliefs.

Guillaume De Sonoma · Sep 08, 2005, 08:04 AM // 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

To be fair - people who argue against the existance of a "Supreme Being" tend to target Christianity - they don't harrass practitioners of Judiasm, Islam or Wikka for that matter.

I think most people target christianity because it kind of put itself out there. Look at Abraham and Muhhamud they said they were prophets well you can sort of not really believe it. But if some guy comes out and says I'm god's son
that is going draw a lot of attention to you. Therefor critism will occur.

Anyways i believe that people almost need to have a belief in "a" god or more gods because faith is one major thing that keeps people going. But its hard to believe in anything anymore because today we need an explanation. I was just basicly refraising what the maximilliuim guy said he was the guy being the revolution in france in 1789 or so.

Anyways religion is a good thing as long as you believe something or believe in something. This also applies to atheists also. I do have a question does buddism (sp) or (D)taoism have a god or is it different they taught us everything about islam and nothing about those two.

Thanas · Sep 08, 2005, 08:16 AM // 08:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

I don't "believe" in science, I accept that the scientific method is by far the best means of determining the "hows" of the universe. Although we cannot know 'how the universe works' (yet) in every intricate detail, the fact is that we know pretty darned well how various aspects of it work. For example stellar life cycles. Through observation, evidence and measurement we know pretty well now how stars do their thing; the relation between mass and lifespan, the elements formed, how the heavier elements (> Fe) of the universe are created... and everywhere we look in the universe (that we can see) it's the same. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable, in light of all the supporting evidence, to make the assumption that the process will hold true in our universe even where we cannot yet see.

Tending to the truth is not the same as the truth.