Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Well i asked that this didn’t get personal right at the start…If i say that i don’t need an answer, why is that so hard to understand?..only you need an answer and only you need me to have an answer…i was looking for reasons as to why people though like this because it is so completely irrelevant to me.

You class me as an “Atheist”…i have never once claimed to be of any specific belief whether for or against religion.
I have not once said that God does not exist, i have merely asked why others believe he does and then put across another view.

I put this to public forum to try to understand why people think in this way and i have learnt a tiny bit as to why.
That has not changed my way of thinking. In some ways it re-enforces what i have always wondered.

People with easily created frustrations like yourself are the ones that tend to act on these frustrations in a quick and often violent way.

Dont get me wrong, I’m no “saint” so to speak and will most likely burn in your “Hell” if it turns out that you guys were right all along…But what the Fuck…who cares…you dont…others i know who believe may do but that is up to them.

To me, you find it as intriguing as i do as to why someone would think like so differently. But instead of taking it and saying…“oh well, his soul will burn”…you attack and demand to know why i dont think as you do.

Get over it and stop speeling long dead peoples thoughs who would dunk a so called witch to see if she lived and thus “proved” she is a witch and therefore had to burn at the stake.
Talking in circles achieves nothing. If i have to be classified as a believer in anything it is that change is inevitable.

I’m not sure what anyone is supposed to get from this post.

One thing I do get from your posts generally, PerfectCircle, is that you seem quite willing to pronounce judgments about religion. And yet, while I could be wrong, you don’t seem to know very much about it. (Whatever “it” is.) Nearly every post of yours is pretty revealing in this respect.

I think what you really want is for posters to “reinforce what you have always wondered” about religion. In other words, perhaps you’re expecting everyone to cater to your prejudices?

I’m not sure what you were expecting, but when you enter a public forum with statements akin to, say, “hey, guys, isn’t obvious that scientists are all just a bunch of deluded, brainwashed idiots?” you’re going to get some strong arguments back at you. And that’s the way it should be, right?

[/quote]

Now you are putting words into my mouth.

I know very little about religious teachings and have never claimed to have known otherwise. i only know what has been exposed to me throughout my life.
Again this thread is being taken to a deeper level where, with all due respect, it doesn’t belong.
If you see my non conformity towards your belief as being prejudice that is your right.
As for “pronouncing judgments on religion” who has made these judgments other than those that are pronouncing in favour of it.

What might someone get from my last answer? What ever they can. If it is nothing but babbling, then that is how they understand me. Others may nod their heads and say “I hear ya”…others may want to snap my condescending uneducated little neck…(one of my points in this whole thread by the way)

My “witch” example was to show the naivety of people in days gone by…but they were only following what they believed and were taught…

Me not being a saint was to try to alleviate any thought that i may have considered myself as superior to anyone else who was answering or reading this thread.
I tried to use terms that worked for me and for others like yourself ( by this i mean the use of going to hell as punishment for a life of sin)

[katzenjammer]

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Now you are putting words into my mouth.
[/quote]
Okay, I’ll use your words.

I know very little about religious teachings and have never claimed to have known otherwise. i only know what has been exposed to me throughout my life.

But you know enough to conclude - or assert, or what have you…- that religion is a form of brainwashing?

If you see my non conformity towards your belief as being prejudice that is your right.

I don’t say that at all. I could care less what you believe.

I do say that your assertions about religion being “just a form of brainwashing” must proceed from some sort of prejudice - after all, as you yourself have said it doesn’t proceed from knowledge or experience.

As for “pronouncing judgments on religion” who has made these judgments other than those that are pronouncing in favour of it.

Are we reading the same thread? I think you should go back and read your posts. All I have to do is to point to your first post:

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.

Religion is a “cop out.” But, then again, I don’t really know that much about it. Right.

My “witch” example was to show the naivety of people in days gone by

I thought “religion didn’t change”?? Your previous post was filled with this sort of unwitting double talk. Read it again.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:

No, it’s rusting…
[/quote]
Rusting - even the grammar says it: it’s a process.

it’s how long it takes to finish the procces that is the perception.

but the process is still going on regardless of your perception, right?

[quote]
All i am trying to get across is that i don’t see Time as being anything that can be explained in any other sense other than as a marker of events and a measurement between events…be it extremely complicated.[/quote]

Think about what you just said. Time is a “marker” (sense # 1) for “events” (sense #2).

It seems to me that you’re forgetting that the time as marker or measurement is always with respect to, or about, something; and that something is a process we can witness and measure. But it’s not something we created. And it exists independently of our perceptions & purposes.

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith. Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.

If you want to define religion as a way to communicate with god then you’d better have some really good proof that A) There is a god, and B) that’s he’s listening. Otherwise, you’re just playing make believe about sky fairies.

The fact that science continually revises itself is not a weakness, it is a strength. Besides, you’re completely missing the point. It’s a small leap of faith to say someone with a PhD conducted an experiment the way his research indicates. And it’s easy to go back if his results turn out to be incorrect. It is a huge huge huge (can’t stress this enough) leap of faith to assume there is a god. It’s an even larger leap to assume that he is your god, not the muslim god, or the flying spaghetti monster. Furthermore, there is no good reason to take those leaps.
[/quote]

Well at least you agree the science as well as belief in God, is a leap of faith at least in varying degrees. I don’t think you realize the degree of assumption taken in science. Science essentially measures things. It doesn’t give why.
For instance, what gives matter, mass? Why, if any given object is mostly space, is it solid? That’s a plain scientific question, but very elusive.

Just because God’s existence isn’t obvious, doesn’t mean “it’s” is not there. Just because it’s not spelled out for you doesn’t discount it’s existence. Some times you have search to find the truth.

As to whose God is it? You can’t own God.

[pat]

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed.

Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith.

Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.

Very good point…but, the difference is that we know and accept that science will change…not so for religion.[/quote]

Religious belief changes all the time…History bears that out…

[pat]

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.

Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?

If so, try proving it.

Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.

Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.

The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.

Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.

I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.

People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.

What is transparent about “it”?

The clock face comment was a generality i used as an example. It is a tool. nothing more. Rust is a chemical reaction. The earth revolves on it own axis as well as around the sun. This was “Measured” by the Inca. Babies into adults complicated chemistry that eventually burns out or malfunctions.

Surely cannot claim that “time” as we know has any influence over anything other than as a measurement.

If so tell me how…I am intrigued…

Measurements don’t change anything, the analyze things. Time is a measurement of movement and change. If nothing moved and nothing changed, then “time” as we know it would cease because there would be nothing to measure. Of course, you could never experience this as you as well would be frozen in space.

When has anyone ever “physically” used “time” ???

Time is a concept that we use…it is not an entity or anything similar…short of the atmosphere desolving into space nothing will ever stop changing…and even then it will only be life as we know it that will perish…the planet itself will still live and who know what micro-organisms will develop over “time” with the new influx of materials and influences that we are currently sheltered from…

I am trying not to get sarcastic with my reply s but i am sensing that you find this line of thinking very hard to understand… [/quote]

No, I don’t find it hard to understand, I think it is dead-ass wrong.

Try to think about this…If everything stopped moving, from the tiniest subatomic particle to the largest super-nova, and everything beyond and in between, including clocks, would you still have time?

[pat]

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.

You still haven’t answered my question yet: do you believe in things that cannot be, “for lack of a better word, proven?”

You don’t want to answer this - and it’s pretty obvious why.

Can you see the pointlessness of this sort of attitude?

Yes, I absolutely see the pointlessness of this attitude.

that is a question that has no answer that will ever be acceptable to people with beliefs like yourself.

If i say yes, then it will be thrown at me as to “why can you not then believe there is a god”

If i say no, i am a hypocrite, because i have said that i believe we will always have an ever changing view of how and why the world we live in is what it is.

people with beliefs as strong as i feel yours are, will always find it hard to understand how or why others cannot see what to you is so obvious…but to me it is obvious only in a different way…

So my answer to your question is…I have no answer. I dont need one.

You need one if your are going to refute arguments. Answering by not answering is really a way of avoiding the truth.

Based on what I have read from you, your arguments for atheism is pretty weak, you really need to rethink them and do much better. I have heard good arguments for atheism, but you haven’t presented any except, you feel absolved from needing one. That is a crock of shit, you took a stance on an issue, you need to be able to defend it, or not take a stand on it publicly.

And for the record, you do believe in things that cannot be proven; everyday. I bet you can’t even give me a decent argument that you exist, much less anything else.

Well i asked that this didn’t get personal right at the start…If i say that i don’t need an answer, why is that so hard to understand?..only you need an answer and only you need me to have an answer…i was looking for reasons as to why people though like this because it is so completely irrelevant to me.

You class me as an “Atheist”…i have never once claimed to be of any specific belief whether for or against religion. I have not once said that God does not exist, i have merely asked why others believe he does and then put across another view.

I put this to public forum to try to understand why people think in this way and i have learnt a tiny bit as to why. That has not changed my way of thinking. In some ways it re-enforces what i have always wondered.

People with easily created frustrations like yourself are the ones that tend to act on these frustrations in a quick and often violent way.

Dont get me wrong, I’m no “saint” so to speak and will most likely burn in your “Hell” if it turns out that you guys were right all along…But what the Fuck…who cares…you dont…others i know who believe may do but that is up to them.

To me, you find it as intriguing as i do as to why someone would think like so differently. But instead of taking it and saying…“oh well, his soul will burn”…you attack and demand to know why i dont think as you do.

Get over it and stop speeling long dead peoples thoughs who would dunk a so called witch to see if she lived and thus “proved” she is a witch and therefore had to burn at the stake.
Talking in circles achieves nothing. If i have to be classified as a believer in anything it is that change is inevitable. [/quote]

If you take a stance on a topic, post it on an open forum for discussion, you do need to explain your beliefs as well. That’s like me saying I am against abortion, I am right, and I don’t have to tell you why because I am the MAN!
All I get from you is that you have a belief you don’t actually know if it’s right, but you are going to press everybody else on why they think the way they do. That is both obtuse and arrogant .
If you bothered to read what dead people said about the very issues you are talking about, you wouldn’t have posted this in the first place because it has all been covered a million times over the past 2-3 thousand years. Nobody is breaking new ground here.

[Lorisco]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

Lorisco wrote:

True. We have no comparison. And comparing random occurrence within and ordered system would not be a reasonable comparison. However, it doesn’t preclude the theory that order requires external action to achieve. And until that can be disproved it is valid.

No. That’s absolutely wrong. A theory is invalid until there is sufficient evidence for it to be deemed useful. At that point, it gets used until we have better information. Saying everything is true until proven otherwise is absolutely horrible reasoning.

The notion that order is descended from some more ordered being is a non-starter in and of itself. Where did the more ordered being get all of its order?

Lastly, the notions of order and chaos are entirely man-made. They are labels we apply to segments of the reality we experience. They aren’t proof of anything at all. [/quote]

Dude, you haven’t been paying attention. EVERYTHING is man made. Science is mad made, religion is man made. There is nothing we can validate that is not man made because it all can only be validated in terms of the human experience. So unless you can test or validate outside the human experience, which you can’t, you point is irrelevant.

[Lorisco]

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith. Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.

If you want to define religion as a way to communicate with god then you’d better have some really good proof that A) There is a god, and B) that’s he’s listening. Otherwise, you’re just playing make believe about sky fairies.

The fact that science continually revises itself is not a weakness, it is a strength. Besides, you’re completely missing the point. It’s a small leap of faith to say someone with a PhD conducted an experiment the way his research indicates. And it’s easy to go back if his results turn out to be incorrect. It is a huge huge huge (can’t stress this enough) leap of faith to assume there is a god. It’s an even larger leap to assume that he is your god, not the muslim god, or the flying spaghetti monster. Furthermore, there is no good reason to take those leaps.

Well at least you agree the science as well as belief in God, is a leap of faith at least in varying degrees. I don’t think you realize the degree of assumption taken in science. Science essentially measures things. It doesn’t give why.
For instance, what gives matter, mass? Why, if any given object is mostly space, is it solid? That’s a plain scientific question, but very elusive.

Just because God’s existence isn’t obvious, doesn’t mean “it’s” is not there. Just because it’s not spelled out for you doesn’t discount it’s existence. Some times you have search to find the truth.

As to whose God is it? You can’t own God.[/quote]

Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.
[/quote]

In fact, the existence of god is irrelevant for science. It can have no meaning in a scientific context. The existence of god can’t even play a role in the history of ideas. Since it is an idea, it’s accuracy is only of secondary interest.
Because god is totally irrelevant, you can’t draw any conclusions of gods existence from science. Science as a source can’t tell you anything because it doesn’t understand the question.

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Now you are putting words into my mouth.

Okay, I’ll use your words.

I know very little about religious teachings and have never claimed to have known otherwise. i only know what has been exposed to me throughout my life.

But you know enough to conclude - or assert, or what have you…- that religion is a form of brainwashing?

If you see my non conformity towards your belief as being prejudice that is your right.

I don’t say that at all. I could care less what you believe.

I do say that your assertions about religion being “just a form of brainwashing” must proceed from some sort of prejudice - after all, as you yourself have said it doesn’t proceed from knowledge or experience.

As for “pronouncing judgments on religion” who has made these judgments other than those that are pronouncing in favour of it.

Are we reading the same thread? I think you should go back and read your posts. All I have to do is to point to your first post:

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.

Religion is a “cop out.” But, then again, I don’t really know that much about it. Right.

My “witch” example was to show the naivety of people in days gone by

I thought “religion didn’t change”?? Your previous post was filled with this sort of unwitting double talk. Read it again.
[/quote]

Ok…My views have not changed. I have tried to answer the relevant questions as they were being presented. Not going back and dragging in an answer from a different question/statement and useing it out of context.
The “Witch” example was used to show “Human” naivety not religious, you bought the religious aspect into it. Human knowledge and it acceptance DOES change.

Go back to my original statement(as I’m sure you have already) and note that i was asking why violent acts of war were being done in the name of god. That is where my “cop out” statement comes from. Does god demand that you seek vengeance for acts committed against you?? Tell me if he does, remember i am seeking out why these things happen and i am religiously ignorant.

Do the Muslim suicide bombers not seem misguided from your point of view? I mean does your god encourage you to do this sort of thing with the promise of virgins and a life of indulgence?
They believe it to be so because that is what is taught to them.
Do you think these teachings are right from (i assume you are Christian) your knowledge of gods teachings? It is the same god that you worship is it not?

Enlighten me? You are telling me that i speak “unwitting double talk” but that is all i hear coming back at me.
You jumped on my “religion doesn’t change” comment, so you must have an issue with that…set me straight, tell my it has changed? I"m all ears.

My so called Judgements on religion have only ever been put as a question. That question is not there waiting for justification of my own belief. It is there to be answered by an opinion of the reader.

You are starting to use this thread to try to discredit my line of questioning. You haven’t come out and explained why you believe in the teachings that you have had. Why it is so deeply important in your life. These are the questions i was asking at the beginning. That is what i am looking to understand.
Instead of trying to pick holes in another’s thought process explain your own so i can understand why you think like you do.

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

No, it’s rusting…

Rusting - even the grammar says it: it’s a process.

it’s how long it takes to finish the procces that is the perception.

but the process is still going on regardless of your perception, right?

All i am trying to get across is that i don’t see Time as being anything that can be explained in any other sense other than as a marker of events and a measurement between events…be it extremely complicated.

Think about what you just said. Time is a “marker” (sense # 1) for “events” (sense #2).

It seems to me that you’re forgetting that the time as marker or measurement is always with respect to, or about, something; and that something is a process we can witness and measure. But it’s not something we created. And it exists independently of our perceptions & purposes.
[/quote]

Correct…up until the " but it is not something we created"It isn’t a something at all, you are completely missing my point and i am sorry but i can’t think of a clearer way of explaining it to you.

Now it’s your turn. How do you see time?

[pat]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.

In fact, the existence of god is irrelevant for science. It can have no meaning in a scientific context. The existence of god can’t even play a role in the history of ideas. Since it is an idea, it’s accuracy is only of secondary interest.
Because god is totally irrelevant, you can’t draw any conclusions of gods existence from science. Science as a source can’t tell you anything because it doesn’t understand the question.[/quote]

Perhaps, but science can be useful in verifying or invalidating arguments used for the existence of God. For instance, the discovery and empirical testing of simultaneous causation was a very important discovery for the cosmological argument for the existence of God, freewill vs. determinism, causation itself, etc. Quantum mechanics was very important to many philosophical questions. It didn’t solve the problems per se, but it moved them ahead, people no longer dwell on that particular sticking point in the various arguments that use such points.

Philosophy and science are very much tied together, since all science initially came from philosophy. Science is much more rigid in its scope, but the means by which it asks questions are basically philosophical questions.

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith. Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.

If you want to define religion as a way to communicate with god then you’d better have some really good proof that A) There is a god, and B) that’s he’s listening. Otherwise, you’re just playing make believe about sky fairies.

The fact that science continually revises itself is not a weakness, it is a strength. Besides, you’re completely missing the point. It’s a small leap of faith to say someone with a PhD conducted an experiment the way his research indicates. And it’s easy to go back if his results turn out to be incorrect. It is a huge huge huge (can’t stress this enough) leap of faith to assume there is a god. It’s an even larger leap to assume that he is your god, not the muslim god, or the flying spaghetti monster. Furthermore, there is no good reason to take those leaps.

Well at least you agree the science as well as belief in God, is a leap of faith at least in varying degrees. I don’t think you realize the degree of assumption taken in science. Science essentially measures things. It doesn’t give why.
For instance, what gives matter, mass? Why, if any given object is mostly space, is it solid? That’s a plain scientific question, but very elusive.

Just because God’s existence isn’t obvious, doesn’t mean “it’s” is not there. Just because it’s not spelled out for you doesn’t discount it’s existence. Some times you have search to find the truth.

As to whose God is it? You can’t own God.[/quote]

Thats a simplistic description of science but essentially true.

I agree with your comment on god’s existence…but some find it hard to understand that others like myself aren’t really concerned about it.
I guess some people are just naturally drawn toward the “what if” line of thought and others to the “what is”

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed.

Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith.

Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.

Very good point…but, the difference is that we know and accept that science will change…not so for religion.

Religious belief changes all the time…History bears that out… [/quote]

How so?

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.

Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?

If so, try proving it.

Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.

Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.

The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.

Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.

I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.

People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.

What is transparent about “it”?

The clock face comment was a generality i used as an example. It is a tool. nothing more. Rust is a chemical reaction. The earth revolves on it own axis as well as around the sun. This was “Measured” by the Inca. Babies into adults complicated chemistry that eventually burns out or malfunctions.

Surely cannot claim that “time” as we know has any influence over anything other than as a measurement.

If so tell me how…I am intrigued…

Measurements don’t change anything, the analyze things. Time is a measurement of movement and change. If nothing moved and nothing changed, then “time” as we know it would cease because there would be nothing to measure. Of course, you could never experience this as you as well would be frozen in space.

When has anyone ever “physically” used “time” ???

Time is a concept that we use…it is not an entity or anything similar…short of the atmosphere desolving into space nothing will ever stop changing…and even then it will only be life as we know it that will perish…the planet itself will still live and who know what micro-organisms will develop over “time” with the new influx of materials and influences that we are currently sheltered from…

I am trying not to get sarcastic with my reply s but i am sensing that you find this line of thinking very hard to understand…

No, I don’t find it hard to understand, I think it is dead-ass wrong.

Try to think about this…If everything stopped moving, from the tiniest subatomic particle to the largest super-nova, and everything beyond and in between, including clocks, would you still have time?[/quote]

Good piont and I would say yes, but only in the sense that it would be marking that event and then continuing on till the next event occured. Be it the restaring of movement or the non existence of all.

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.

You still haven’t answered my question yet: do you believe in things that cannot be, “for lack of a better word, proven?”

You don’t want to answer this - and it’s pretty obvious why.

Can you see the pointlessness of this sort of attitude?

Yes, I absolutely see the pointlessness of this attitude.

that is a question that has no answer that will ever be acceptable to people with beliefs like yourself.

If i say yes, then it will be thrown at me as to “why can you not then believe there is a god”

If i say no, i am a hypocrite, because i have said that i believe we will always have an ever changing view of how and why the world we live in is what it is.

people with beliefs as strong as i feel yours are, will always find it hard to understand how or why others cannot see what to you is so obvious…but to me it is obvious only in a different way…

So my answer to your question is…I have no answer. I dont need one.

You need one if your are going to refute arguments. Answering by not answering is really a way of avoiding the truth.

Based on what I have read from you, your arguments for atheism is pretty weak, you really need to rethink them and do much better. I have heard good arguments for atheism, but you haven’t presented any except, you feel absolved from needing one. That is a crock of shit, you took a stance on an issue, you need to be able to defend it, or not take a stand on it publicly.

And for the record, you do believe in things that cannot be proven; everyday. I bet you can’t even give me a decent argument that you exist, much less anything else.

Well i asked that this didn’t get personal right at the start…If i say that i don’t need an answer, why is that so hard to understand?..only you need an answer and only you need me to have an answer…i was looking for reasons as to why people though like this because it is so completely irrelevant to me.

You class me as an “Atheist”…i have never once claimed to be of any specific belief whether for or against religion. I have not once said that God does not exist, i have merely asked why others believe he does and then put across another view.

I put this to public forum to try to understand why people think in this way and i have learnt a tiny bit as to why. That has not changed my way of thinking. In some ways it re-enforces what i have always wondered.

People with easily created frustrations like yourself are the ones that tend to act on these frustrations in a quick and often violent way.

Dont get me wrong, I’m no “saint” so to speak and will most likely burn in your “Hell” if it turns out that you guys were right all along…But what the Fuck…who cares…you dont…others i know who believe may do but that is up to them.

To me, you find it as intriguing as i do as to why someone would think like so differently. But instead of taking it and saying…“oh well, his soul will burn”…you attack and demand to know why i dont think as you do.

Get over it and stop speeling long dead peoples thoughs who would dunk a so called witch to see if she lived and thus “proved” she is a witch and therefore had to burn at the stake.
Talking in circles achieves nothing. If i have to be classified as a believer in anything it is that change is inevitable.

If you take a stance on a topic, post it on an open forum for discussion, you do need to explain your beliefs as well. That’s like me saying I am against abortion, I am right, and I don’t have to tell you why because I am the MAN!
All I get from you is that you have a belief you don’t actually know if it’s right, but you are going to press everybody else on why they think the way they do. That is both obtuse and arrogant .
If you bothered to read what dead people said about the very issues you are talking about, you wouldn’t have posted this in the first place because it has all been covered a million times over the past 2-3 thousand years. Nobody is breaking new ground here. [/quote]

Please point out an instance where i have stated that i am right and your views are wrong.
I haven’t made a stand on anything. i have merely put another point of view out there. An opposite if you like.
Again you tend to look on it as an attack on your thinking. It’s not, it’s a different thinking. Nothing more.

Sure this topic is thousands of years old. I dont have the time or inclination to read those arguments, that is why i was asking for input through this thread.

I knew it would be edgy and was prepared for it. i have always tried to keep it unbiased by only put out questions and not making statements. I have answered questions with answers i was comfortable with. These don’t please all but so be it. That is how i am.
I have no intentions of trying to change views only understand.
If you see me as arrogant and obtuse then, you have taken my comments in the wrong contexts which was inevitable.

You see me as having a belief that i won’t back up. That is where the misunderstandings come from. Why do i have to be on my side or your side. Why is it hard to understand that some just want to understand it all, there are no sides, just more information to be learnt.

[pat]

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:

Very good point…but, the difference is that we know and accept that science will change…not so for religion.

Religious belief changes all the time…History bears that out…

How so?[/quote]

Huguenots, Puritans, all gone. Protestant reformation. Vatican I and II. Islam from a religion to a murderous cult, etc.

Religion may be a means to develop a relationship with God, but the way that relationship manifests itself is sometimes good and sometimes bad. After all humans run the churches and humans are very fallible.

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!

So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?

Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?

I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.

Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith. Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.

If you want to define religion as a way to communicate with god then you’d better have some really good proof that A) There is a god, and B) that’s he’s listening. Otherwise, you’re just playing make believe about sky fairies.

The fact that science continually revises itself is not a weakness, it is a strength. Besides, you’re completely missing the point. It’s a small leap of faith to say someone with a PhD conducted an experiment the way his research indicates. And it’s easy to go back if his results turn out to be incorrect. It is a huge huge huge (can’t stress this enough) leap of faith to assume there is a god. It’s an even larger leap to assume that he is your god, not the muslim god, or the flying spaghetti monster. Furthermore, there is no good reason to take those leaps.

Well at least you agree the science as well as belief in God, is a leap of faith at least in varying degrees. I don’t think you realize the degree of assumption taken in science. Science essentially measures things. It doesn’t give why.
For instance, what gives matter, mass? Why, if any given object is mostly space, is it solid? That’s a plain scientific question, but very elusive.

Just because God’s existence isn’t obvious, doesn’t mean “it’s” is not there. Just because it’s not spelled out for you doesn’t discount it’s existence. Some times you have search to find the truth.

As to whose God is it? You can’t own God.

Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.
[/quote]

Again well said…but has science ever been used to try to prove the existence or non existence of god?

[Perfectcircle]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Good post pat. I totally agree. There is a large degree of faith required in science and science really has no valid reason to discount the existence of God. The standard rationale is that it cannot be measured, so that is why God doesn’t exist. However, science cannot measure a lot of things (as you mentioned) that it believes exist.

In fact, the existence of god is irrelevant for science. It can have no meaning in a scientific context. The existence of god can’t even play a role in the history of ideas. Since it is an idea, it’s accuracy is only of secondary interest.
Because god is totally irrelevant, you can’t draw any conclusions of gods existence from science. Science as a source can’t tell you anything because it doesn’t understand the question.[/quote]

Good post kaaleppi