Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]pat wrote:

God of gaps? That is for people who use God to explain the occurrence of things. I am not espousing the dictum that if we don’t understand something God made it mysteriously happen. It does not matter what science is able to explain or discover.

God’s existence is independent of that. Also, the key words hear are “explain” or “discover”. Notice that science cannot create a God-damn thing, everything already exists.

If you don’t discount them or investigate there availability, how then, can you relegate them to bullshit status? The fallacy is more your logic applied rather than the event itself. You can’t know if you don’t bother to try.

Which also goes to debunk your assertion of “No evidence”. It is rather, you don’t feel like considering the evidence. That is a rather different thing than no evidence what so ever. Don’t try that in court, you’ll lose.

At least Orion’s attack on causality was more challenging. However, here you go. What caused the Big Bang (if there were such an event, last I checked it was still a theory, an unprovable one at that, yet you have faith in it…interesting). What existed before the big bang? What would have caused the events that proceeded the big bang and what were they made of.

Currently you are arguing from the point that everything that exists came from nothing. I am arguing that everything came from something. On the surface which makes more sense?
[/quote]

Ummm… cloning, we’ve created life.

Beth Villavicencio works miracles.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/suppo

rt_cancer_research_now.php#more

Miracles. Brought to you by science.

As I’ve patiently explained to you already, there are things that happen in this world that are unexplainable, but that doesn’t make them miracles from god… it makes them unexplainable.

Do you know of any miracles where god himself said “I’m god and I did this and it is a miracle.” If you haven’t, I don’t know why you would call them miracles instead of unexplained events. There is no good reason to make the jump.

Wow. You completely didn’t read my argument. Seriously, I’m sure there is a middle school within driving distance of your home. I’m sure one of the teachers there would be happy to tutor you.

I like to keep my uncaused events as simple as possible. god, as he is normally defined, would be infinitely more complex and powerful than the big bang so it makes less sense to choose god as your uncaused event.

I’ve got beers to drink, so I’m not going to research the big bang. I’m pretty sure it’s the best theory we have right now, but it wouldn’t shock me if I’m wrong. The point is that whatever caused the universe would be less powerful and complicated than god, so it doesn’t make sense to play the god card here.

Getting away from the points we’ve been arguing about: Why is it that you are so interested in putting down science? I suspect that you, like many people, think that putting down science somehow strengths the case for religion. It doesn’t. Even you completely eviscerated science all you would have done is eviscerated science. Religion would have no more cause to fill the gap than any other superstition.

I think I see where this comes from. As science advances, it chips away at the things where religion used to have dominion. It’s a one way assault unfortunately. When religion tries to dictate to science it is a colossal fail (Galileo anyone?).

… Anyway, just rambling. Bring on the flames :).

P.S.

WHY WON’T YOU HELP ME WITH THE MONSTERS UNDER MY BED??? THEY’RE FUCKING SCARY AND I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO PROVE THEY DON’T EXIST!!!

382

[quote]pat wrote:

Relying on “things” you cannot know for certain is an act of faith. The assertion being that just because you are atheist, doesn’t mean you do not rely heavily on faith.[/quote]

Faith requires believing in a positive. One cannot prove a negative, ever, so it is not faith to disbelieve something that has not been proven.

I do not take it on faith that there is not an invisible tea pot that follows me around making silent wise cracks, just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.

383

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
WHY WON’T YOU HELP ME WITH THE MONSTERS UNDER MY BED??? THEY’RE FUCKING SCARY AND I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO PROVE THEY DON’T EXIST!!![/quote]

Sometimes you have to wonder which side of the debate has the most zealous people…

384

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.
[/quote]

He doesn’t rely on faith?! But, you already said he can never have evidence of God’s non-existence. So, without such evidence, he must have faith that there is no God. There’s a saying about many an Atheist losing their faith in foxholes. When, an atheist loses their faith, they pray.

385

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Even Jesus despised religion. [/quote]

Not really. He did send apostles, men appointed to teach the word, out into the world after all.

386

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

I think I see where this comes from. As science advances, it chips away at the things where religion used to have dominion. It’s a one way assault unfortunately. When religion tries to dictate to science it is a colossal fail (Galileo anyone?).
[/quote]

And this. Oh, I don’t see science replacing my religion, since I don’t find them at odds. In fact, a great many of us have contributed to the sciences. Well, not me personally. But, you know what I mean.

387

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:

Relying on “things” you cannot know for certain is an act of faith. The assertion being that just because you are atheist, doesn’t mean you do not rely heavily on faith.

Faith requires believing in a positive. One cannot prove a negative, ever, so it is not faith to disbelieve something that has not been proven.

I do not take it on faith that there is not an invisible tea pot that follows me around making silent wise cracks, just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.
[/quote]

So by your own logic, as explain edhere. All I have to do is claim that something doesn’t exist and I don’t have to explain why?

So if I say “Racism does not exist.” I don’t have to prove it or substantiate it? After all, you cannot prove to me it does. All evidence of it is anecdotal and circumstantial at best.

388

[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Karma ftw.

As far as I can tell, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism are widely considered religions.

And personally, I don’t see any difference between the concept of karma and divine retribution as described in the monotheistic religions.[/quote]

LAWLZ…really?

Three words: Look more closely.

389

[quote]pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:

Relying on “things” you cannot know for certain is an act of faith. The assertion being that just because you are atheist, doesn’t mean you do not rely heavily on faith.

Faith requires believing in a positive. One cannot prove a negative, ever, so it is not faith to disbelieve something that has not been proven.

I do not take it on faith that there is not an invisible tea pot that follows me around making silent wise cracks, just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.

So by your own logic, as explain edhere. All I have to do is claim that something doesn’t exist and I don’t have to explain why?

So if I say “Racism does not exist.” I don’t have to prove it or substantiate it? After all, you cannot prove to me it does. All evidence of it is anecdotal and circumstantial at best.[/quote]

Category error. This should not be hard to understand.

390

[quote]Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.[/quote]

Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.

Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.

391

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Ummm… cloning, we’ve created life.
[/quote]

We’ve create life? Really, did we create the chromosomes? Did we invent genetic structure? What about the source for the copied DNA, where does it come from? Have scientists create DNA out of nothing?

It seems to me, we merely copied life and did a poor job of it as the copy is not as good as the real thing. So what part did we actually create? Didn’t we rather assemble raw material that already existed? I am confused, which part did science create?

Link is bad. Cannot connect, yes I tried to assemble the whole thing in the address bar.

I never contested that science can do astounding things

I am not talking about unexplained events in general. I’d say we don’t understand most of what there is to know. I am talking about things that seem to defy logic and nature and are attributed to God.

It is a moot point to argue because there are two components to successfully discussing the point. Pick an event or “miracle”, preferably one that is currently experience-able break it down, but also experience it.

Since I do not have time or money to do such a thing and include you in the process it is impossible to discuss it the way it would need to be discussed.

Rather, in a forum format we only have written words and that is not enough. That is not to say that somethings that people claim are miracles, are bullshit, but that doesn’t mean that others are not legit.

I will discuss it with you if you wish as far as we can through prose. Pick one and I will discuss.

Wow! You completely didn’t make one!

God’s “nature” is completely irrelevant to whether or not He exists. We would have to establish existence first, before we can discuss his nature. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

Again, God’s nature is irrelevant to the conversation.

You got that completely wrong. I LOVE science. I believe science is one of the very important components to quest for knowledge. I just don’t attribute the ‘deistic’ properties that you seem to and most atheists attribute to science.
Religion isn’t about explaining the unexplained. I thought we moved past that after the middle ages.

More over, I believe science does more to strengthen an argument for existence rather that ‘chip away’ at it.

[quote]
P.S.

WHY WON’T YOU HELP ME WITH THE MONSTERS UNDER MY BED??? THEY’RE FUCKING SCARY AND I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO PROVE THEY DON’T EXIST!!![/quote]

If you got monsters, that ain’t my problem.

392

[quote]Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
WHY WON’T YOU HELP ME WITH THE MONSTERS UNDER MY BED??? THEY’RE FUCKING SCARY AND I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO PROVE THEY DON’T EXIST!!!

Sometimes you have to wonder which side of the debate has the most zealous people…[/quote]

That is an interesting observation. :slight_smile:

393

[quote]wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.

Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.

Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.[/quote]

Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL!

394

[quote]wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:

Relying on “things” you cannot know for certain is an act of faith. The assertion being that just because you are atheist, doesn’t mean you do not rely heavily on faith.

Faith requires believing in a positive. One cannot prove a negative, ever, so it is not faith to disbelieve something that has not been proven.

I do not take it on faith that there is not an invisible tea pot that follows me around making silent wise cracks, just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.

So by your own logic, as explained here. All I have to do is claim that something doesn’t exist and I don’t have to explain why?

So if I say “Racism does not exist.” I don’t have to prove it or substantiate it? After all, you cannot prove to me it does. All evidence of it is anecdotal and circumstantial at best.

Category error. This should not be hard to understand.[/quote]

How so? I’m not comparing God to racism, comparing them on the basis that both have evidence as to their existence, yet neither can be proven to exist beyond the shadow of a doubt. Showing the similarity to conceptual reality.

395

[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:

Relying on “things” you cannot know for certain is an act of faith. The assertion being that just because you are atheist, doesn’t mean you do not rely heavily on faith.

Faith requires believing in a positive. One cannot prove a negative, ever, so it is not faith to disbelieve something that has not been proven.

I do not take it on faith that there is not an invisible tea pot that follows me around making silent wise cracks, just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.

So by your own logic, as explained here. All I have to do is claim that something doesn’t exist and I don’t have to explain why?

So if I say “Racism does not exist.” I don’t have to prove it or substantiate it? After all, you cannot prove to me it does. All evidence of it is anecdotal and circumstantial at best.

Category error. This should not be hard to understand.

How so? I’m not comparing God to racism, comparing them on the basis that both have evidence as to their existence, yet neither can be proven to exist beyond the shadow of a doubt. Showing the similarity to conceptual reality.[/quote]

Because they aren’t even remotely the same KIND of thing.

396

[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.

Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.

Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.

Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL![/quote]

Religion has no means by which to test the validity of it’s truth claims - science, however, does.

397

[quote]wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.

Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.

Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.

Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL!

Religion has no means by which to test the validity of it’s truth claims - science, however, does.[/quote]

So, faith is not based on empirical testing and logical deduction? I am amazed about the amount of people who think it should be.

398

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

We’ve create life? Really, did we create the chromosomes? Did we invent genetic structure? What about the source for the copied DNA, where does it come from? Have scientists create DNA out of nothing?

It seems to me, we merely copied life and did a poor job of it as the copy is not as good as the real thing. So what part did we actually create? Didn’t we rather assemble raw material that already existed? I am confused, which part did science create?

It is a moot point to argue because there are two components to successfully discussing the point. Pick an event or “miracle”, preferably one that is currently experience-able break it down, but also experience it.

Since I do not have time or money to do such a thing and include you in the process it is impossible to discuss it the way it would need to be discussed.

Rather, in a forum format we only have written words and that is not enough. That is not to say that somethings that people claim are miracles, are bullshit, but that doesn’t mean that others are not legit.

I will discuss it with you if you wish as far as we can through prose. Pick one and I will discuss.

Wow! You completely didn’t make one!

God’s “nature” is completely irrelevant to whether or not He exists. We would have to establish existence first, before we can discuss his nature. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

Again, God’s nature is irrelevant to the conversation.

WHY WON’T YOU HELP ME WITH THE MONSTERS UNDER MY BED??? THEY’RE FUCKING SCARY AND I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO PROVE THEY DON’T EXIST!!!

If you got monsters, that ain’t my problem. [/quote]

Here’s a headline from June 2005.

MIT physicists create new form of matter

Were the clones alive or not? If I were you, I’d go ahead an concede this point. You can’t dig out of a hole.

Trying the link again. It’s about how we’re kicking the shit out of cancer.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/support_cancer_research_now.php#more

This is the blog homepage. If the link above doesn’t work, and you’re interested you should be able to get to the story from here.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

I’ve covered all the logical possibilities. There are events that are either explainable or not. Not being explainable doesn’t make it a miracle.

If you want it classified as a miracle, then you need to make the case that it is something more than an unexplained event. As with the existence of god, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. To try to have it any other way is non-sense.

I almost passed out laughing when I read this gem. god’s nature IS central to this argument. To use the teleological argument, you have to allow for an uncaused event in order to avoid an infinite regress that would make the argument nonsensical.

The argument takes it for granted that this event is god, but that is obviously over-kill. The fact that the universe exists just proves that something capable of creating the universe happened, and god is just one of many possibilities.

It bears mentioning here that god is the possibility with the least evidence. You just can’t pick the most complicated option with no evidence for it and expect to be right.

Actually, they’re kind of your problem. Do you have faith they exist, or can you prove that they don’t?

399

It does not matter what science is able to explain or discover. God’s existence is independent of that. Also, the key words hear are “explain” or “discover”. Notice that science cannot create a God-damn thing, everything already exists.

Sorry Pat, but that is a very naive statement…

400

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

The mind is an intricate part of us and yet we have a very limited understanding of it capabilities. There is more mystery in it’s abilities than we could ever imagine.

A beautiful articulation of your faith! You sound like quite a religious fellow there, PerfectCircle! :slight_smile:

Well you could say I “religiously” question what i don’t understand…

Relying on “things” you cannot know for certain is an act of faith. The assertion being that just because you are atheist, doesn’t mean you do not rely heavily on faith.[/quote]

I have never claimed to be an “Athiest”. That is a label used by others to classify another persons views.

The human species is THE most complicated piece of “machinery” there is in existence today.
Everyday we are learning and relearning how we work. And why.

Our own potential is unknown. If you wish to call it “Faith” that makes me believe that we are far from understanding how we function and what we may be capable of, then so be it.
I believe in our own abilities as a species. This causes some to think there is guidance being offered and others to think that we are alone within our universe.

To me it all comes down to how a single persons mind is “programmed” to operate. We are taught from our very beginnings by those that influence us. Just as a computer needs information to operate so do we. A computer can catch a virus and malfunction. So can we. Feed the wrong info into a computer and it won’t behave how you want it to. So do we.