Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
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?

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!!![/quote]

Strong arguement …

402

[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]

Come on, you know that was being used to highlight a still unanswered question… Simplistic as it maybe it is still relevant.

403

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

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.[/quote]

Would that not just be a subconscious reaction to the never ending subliminal messages that we are constantly bombarded with. In a time of extreme fear and the feeling of impending doom…

“Repent and all your sins will be forgiven”…SHIT!!! I’m going to die…Mummy!!!..What if i am wrong???what if there is a god. Please god save me?..BOOOOMMMM!!!..To late

404

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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?).

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.[/quote]

Did God supply the computer you now use…or the cell phone or…or…?

405

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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?).

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.

Did God supply the computer you now use…or the cell phone or…or…?[/quote]

Is this a serious question? Or, an attempt at ridicule?

406

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
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…

Come on, you know that was being used to highlight a still unanswered question…Simplistic as it maybe it is still relevant.[/quote]

Don’t know, I’ve never had faith in monsters under the bed.

407

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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?).

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.

Did God supply the computer you now use…or the cell phone or…or…?

Is this a serious question? Or, an attempt at ridicule?[/quote]

No sorry i retract that question. I have lost my train of thought on that one and can’t justify it now.

408

[quote]wirewound wrote:
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.

Because they aren’t even remotely the same KIND of thing.
[/quote]

Exactly!

Pat,

You should be comparing racism to religion because they are both sets of beliefs and ideas. The very fact that you are arguing about them is proof that they exist. This standard of proof only applies to ideas. Talking about nuclear powered car does not actually produce a nuclear powered car that someone could drive to work.

409

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
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…

Come on, you know that was being used to highlight a still unanswered question…Simplistic as it maybe it is still relevant.

Don’t know, I’ve never had faith in monsters under the bed. [/quote]

Why not?

410

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

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.[/quote]

I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.

Based on your logic above, should I believe in Santa Clause too?

411

Religion isn’t always about God. It’s as much about tradition as it is about that; at least, to me. Preserving my faith is like staying true to my roots. It’s also a faith that my father and his father before him carried through communism dutifully, and the REAL cop-out would be to give it up now.

412

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.

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.

I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.

Based on your logic above, should I believe in Santa Clause too?

[/quote]

I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t lived your life. Personally, I haven’t had a Santa Clause type of experience. Just religious experiences that lead me to my Christian faith.

PS. Thanks for the link. But, you missed the point, I think.

413

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
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…

Come on, you know that was being used to highlight a still unanswered question…Simplistic as it maybe it is still relevant.

Don’t know, I’ve never had faith in monsters under the bed.

Why not? [/quote]

I’ve never had a monster under the bed type of experience.

414

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.
[/quote]

That is an argument I see often and to tell you the truth, it is a bit dishonest. Ditch it. There is no way you would have posted as many serious posts on a thread about santa clause.

415

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
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.

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

Truth claims should not be based on faith. That’s the point. Reality itself is intrinsically knowable via contemplative religion, but it’s parts are best examined by science. Hence, truth claims or beliefs should be based on falsifiable evidence not revelatory proclaimation. Religion’s purview is the examination of the subjective experience of reality, not the intricacies of the objective universe.

416

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
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…[/quote]

I don’t see how since it is true…What does science create? Does it not, rather, manipulate variables that already exist?

417

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
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?

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!!!

Strong arguement …[/quote]

Are you serious?! You thought that was a strong argument. It was all over the place and inconsistent as hell. A strong argument would be one where the drawn conclusions follows directly from its premises. Nothing in this is deductive, it’s more a bunch of random thoughts.

418

You are awfully arrogant for being as bad at logic as you are. You conglomerate a bunch of random points and call that mess of shit an argument.

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Here’s a headline from June 2005.

MIT physicists create new form of matter
[/quote]

I don’t see where they created matter of nothing. Rather they manipulated already existing matter into a new form. While interesting, it is not much different than what science has been doing for centuries.

So? Dolly was alive. I never said she wasn’t What part of her was created from nothing? Also, doesn’t cloned mean “copied”? How does copying a life suddenly mean we created a life out of nothing?

Besides, they took DNA from one cell and injected it into another and then stimulated division. The cell was already alive, they just exchanged the guts. They can only stumlate division with living cells, dead ones, or inert ones won’t work.

Progess is good, but why then do so many people still die from cancer? What in the fuck does that have to do with whether or not God exists?

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Miracles or not unexplained events…Again I will repeat, miricles are events that defy logic and the natural order of things AND must be attributed to God.
Repeating the exact same thing you said before does not make you “argument” stronger.

For God nature to be central to an argument you would have to concede the fact that He exists. After all, nothing cannot have a nature can it? For something to have a nature, it must exist first. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse, or you conceded God exists and now we can move on to discussing he-she-it’s nature.

[quote]

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

I don�??t give a damn if they exist or not. I hope for your sake they don’t or at least they turn out to be friendly.

419

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

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.

Would that not just be a subconscious reaction to the never ending subliminal messages that we are constantly bombarded with. In a time of extreme fear and the feeling of impending doom…

“Repent and all your sins will be forgiven”…SHIT!!! I’m going to die…Mummy!!!..What if i am wrong???what if there is a god. Please god save me?..BOOOOMMMM!!!..To late[/quote]

Did you mummy beat you with a bible?

420

[quote]wirewound wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
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.

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

Truth claims should not be based on faith. That’s the point. Reality itself is intrinsically knowable via contemplative religion, but it’s parts are best examined by science. Hence, truth claims or beliefs should be based on falsifiable evidence not revelatory proclaimation. Religion’s purview is the examination of the subjective experience of reality, not the intricacies of the objective universe.
[/quote]

What is truth?