1 edit
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWishfull thinking SoS. Please read my posts and the others from other debators very carefully.
You're chasing your own tail. I often don't agree with what rwingett says, but I'll have to side with him on this one, for he was the one who was origninally attacked. You called him old fashioned; coming up with something older t ...[text shortened]... arguable only digs you deeper into your own hole.
... --- ...
SoS: " You called him old fashioned; coming up with something older that is inarguable ..... "
Don't you think my example was to point out his flawed reasoning ?
He didn't adress the substance of my comment, but mentioned some irrelevant notion that I rely on "medieval dogma's". Maybe I do, maybe I don't, the remark is as superfluous and irrelevant to the issue as my remark that 1+1=2. Does this notion refute the things Rwingo says ? No, of course not and his remarks do not refute mine.
However, Rwingo needs to update his "knowledge" because science is moving in a direction that will make him a heretic in the field, science, he is trying to annex for himself. Rwingo is, as it were, still trying to change lead to gold.
1 edit
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThat's a logical fallacy. A 2000 year old true proposition is better then a 5-year old proposition that is wrong. Age is not a factor in truth. It is a common fallacy to argue thus - how can you believe a 2000-year-old book? Or - it must be true for it stood the 'test-of-time.' Both argue that age is a factor to prove truth, both are fallacious.
...You called him old fashioned; coming up with something older that is inarguable only digs you deeper into your own hole.
... --- ...
Now if I could determine the name of the fallacy. Anyone?
1 edit
Originally posted by thesonofsaulPerhaps it is an evolutionary mechanism useful for preventing free-riding, which thereby allows us to solve prisoner's dilemma type collective action problems. The concept of God would be like an internalized panopticon.
As a theist I don't necesserily believe that man invented the concept of God. But as an intellectual, I have to consider the possibility with an honest and open mind. This question is for the atheists especially, but all are welcome ...[text shortened]... t, whatever) hovering overhead all the time? Well?
... --- ...
Originally posted by ColettiTo the extent that people live longer, are healthier and are less likely to die from disease and starvation, yes we're better off. To the extent that our knowledge has been expanded and we now know many things that we couldn't dream of even a hundred years ago, yes we're "better" people as we are only ignorant if we choose to be. You may wallow in your superstition and contempt for science and rational thinking if you want to, but people in general don't have to.
Spoken like a true believer.
What knowledge? Can you explain the engineering details of a Model-T? Do you understand how your Internet connection works? And your microwave oven? How about the flue vaccine? Isn't most of your knowledge just superficial, and speculation? The point is, we take much of what science tells us on 'blind faith'. Which is n ...[text shortened]... and honestly ask yourself if we are better people for it -- not better off - but better people.
Their is no "secret" knowledge in science; any of the knowledge in science is freely available to those who seek it. The fact that I cannot tell you the exact equations that Einstein used as scientific proof for his Theory of Relativity does not mean that I could not find them and perhaps with much study understand them. I do understand the basic points behind that theory as I understand the other examples you've given; I also know that the electricity in my house is provided by Niagara Mohawk, not God. As usual, religious nuts confuse the rational belief in the scientific method "proven" by thousands of years of intellectual and technological advancement with their blind, irrational faith in an unseen Christian God. Believe what you want, but to say how the scientific method is no more valid than blind faith in religion is just silly while you are typing on a computer. Here's a simple experiment to prove which is more valid to rely on: turn your computer off and then go down to your basement and turn your electricity off. Then go back to your computer and pray for God to turn your electricity and computer back on. Type back when He has done so.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince Christianity itself is an offshoot of a preexisting religion, I fail to see why it should be accorded special status. And of course, the myths and stories of the preexisting religion seem to have been largely "borrowed" from religions predating it. Why is Christianity soooooo different from the religions it sprung out of?
One of the problems with these discussions is that people who attack religion equate Christian faith with all the religions of the past.
I wonder what would happen in the debate if "the other side" was to equate science with for instance astrology and "scientists" trying to change lead to gold. This is exactly what Rwingo, no1 et alia are doing with Christian faith. No meaningful debate can ever emerge from such stances.
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy apologies. Not for being wrong, because even after "carefully reading" the other posts I still think you contradicted yourself, saying that rwingett's ideas are "so old-fashioned" when your own ideas aren't exactly being printed in the pages of Vouge. No, I appologize for allowing myself to encourage discussion off the topic. I created this thread because I wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue as a study of humanity, not to start, encourage, or participate in petty arguments. If you don't mind, what is your answer to my question?
Wishfull thinking SoS. Please read my posts and the others from other debators very carefully.
SoS: " You called him old fashioned; coming up with something older that is inarguable ..... "
Don't you think my example was to point out his flawed reasoning ?
He didn't adress the substance of my comment, but mentioned some irrelevant notion that I ...[text shortened]... e is trying to annex for himself. Rwingo is, as it were, still trying to change lead to gold.
... --- ...
3 edits
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
My apologies. Not for being wrong, because even after "carefully reading" the other posts I still think you contradicted yourself, saying that rwingett's ideas are "so old-fashioned" when your own ideas aren't exactly being prin ...[text shortened]... don't mind, what is your answer to my question?
... --- ...
I agree, let's not pursue petty arguments.
Your question entails a notion I do not agree with. "We" indeed invent ,and still do invent, a lot of gods, but there is One who has not been invented. That's why all the reasoning, false or true, following from your question only applies to the non-existing gods.
Originally posted by ivanhoeExactly. To invent something obviously implies that that thing did not exist before the inventing. But you didn't answer the question. Why would so many peoples on this planet invent gods that, accouring to you, coun't possibly exist? And, once those reasons have been solidified, why is your own religion immune to those reasons? I think that question can be answered without leaving the bounds of your faith, and should be answered by anyone claiming to be an open minded intellectual.
I agree, let's not pursue petty arguments.
Your question entails a notion I do not agree with. "We" indeed invent ,and still do invent, a lot of gods, but there is One who has not been invented. That's why all the reasoning, false or true, following from your question only applies to the non-existing gods.
... --- ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm sure all the Sikh's, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists etc in the world are all equally convinced that their own religion is the truth.
Your question entails a notion I do not agree with. "We" indeed invent ,and still do invent, a lot of gods, but there is One who has not been invented. That's why all the reasoning, false or true, following from your question only applies to the non-existing gods.
Why does Christianity stand above those other religions? Surely it's because you have faith in your religion? Not because you have a lack of faith in science? And for the vast majority of people, their religion is pre-determined by the society, culture and family that nurtures them - not some over-riding truth that guides them down the righteous path? Of course, every religious person who has faith in their religion or God believes it ti be the fundamental truth, that their god is the only God.
Can they all be true?
Maybe all religions are just different cultures ways of interpreting God. I cannot see any reason why, as a non-atheist who doesn't follow any particular religion, any one religion can lay claim to being the only truth. For members of the different churches to believe that themselves is one thing, but I have never heard a logical, reasoned argument to convince me why ANY religion is the correct one.
I may have to invent my own religion to interpret and express my own relationship with God... looks like it will be a church of one!
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Exactly. To invent something obviously implies that that thing did not exist before the inventing. But you didn't answer the question. Why would so many peoples on this planet invent gods that, accouring to you, coun't possibly exist? And, once those reasons have been solidified, why is your own religion immune to those reasons? I think that ques ...[text shortened]... h, and should be answered by anyone claiming to be an open minded intellectual.
... --- ...
Let's talk about important gods: money or fame or the "autonomous self" ?
Why was the "autonomous self" invented ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeStart your own thread about this if you like. That's not what this one is about. Either answer the question as stated, or show everyone how much you don't want to answer by refraining. Your choice.
Let's talk about important gods: money or fame or the "autonomous self" ?
Why was the "autonomous self" invented ?
... --- ...
Originally posted by ColettiMust I know exactly how my computer works to know that science is responsibe for creating it? Is there something competing with science for the credit for creating these sort of technological advances? Science has done great things, I think this was the only point being made by no1.
Spoken like a true believer.
What knowledge? Can you explain the engineering details of a Model-T? Do you understand how your Internet connection works? And your microwave oven? How about the flue vaccine? Isn't most of your knowledge just superficial, and speculation? The point is, we take much of what science tells us on 'blind faith'. Which is n ...[text shortened]... and honestly ask yourself if we are better people for it -- not better off - but better people.
If you want to argue that science has not done anything for us, by all means, continue.
I think we all take much of science on a sort of 'blind faith' because we lack the expertise to learn it for ourselves. I can live with that as I find the study of electricity boring. However, just because I do not understand it does not mean that Science is not responsible for it anyway. Unless, of course, you are making that claim that God tweeks my lightbulb when I flip the correct switch.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperThis is what we in the logical world call a strawman.
Must I know exactly how my computer works to know that science is responsibe for creating it? Is there something competing with science for the credit for creating these sort of technological advances? Science has done great things, I think this was the only point being made by no1.
If you want to argue that science has not done anything for us, by a ...[text shortened]... e making that claim that God tweeks my lightbulb when I flip the correct switch.
TheSkipper
Burn, baby, burn!
2 edits
Originally posted by thesonofsaulPeople invent(ed) notions they call "gods" in order to be able to control them, to control others and to control their environment, the world.
Start your own thread about this if you like. That's not what this one is about. Either answer the question as stated, or show everyone how much you don't want to answer by refraining. Your choice.
... --- ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd how exactly is that different from the Christian God? That seems to be one of the follow up questions Son of Saul is asking also.
People invent(ed) notions they call "gods" in order to be able to control them, to control others and to control their environment, the world.