[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]
Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.
It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]
That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.
[/quote]
Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.
For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.
I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]
But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]
I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]
Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]
… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.
Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]
Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]
No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.
As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]
Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.
You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.
It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]
You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.
Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.
You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).
If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]
The bible isn’t a history book, a science book or a math book, it never was and never will be. Therefore it is not constrained by such rules as those other disciplines you mentioned. Saying a cook book doesn’t give accurate dimensions to build a deck doesn’t make the cook book invalid.
Second, it’s pretty clear you’ve never read it or you’d realize why what you said is irrelevant. I love critiquing book I never read. I heard ‘Don Quixote’ is a piece of shit, I agree and I never read it…
Second, I am well aware of String Theory which you aptly butchered above. I like string theory quite a bit, but it does not posit an still cannot posit ‘something from nothing’ which the atheist must do. Further, causation is not bound by time, it can occur in or out of it. I never argued a temporal succession in causation. In fact I argued the opposite. In metaphysics, there is no time, but there is causation.
You made to many assumptions. I am not an evangelical biblical literalalist. I like science and theoretical sciences very much. But I also know that through out history science has also been mostly wrong. [/quote]
The bible, a book accounting for the history leading up to the messiah, the man our B.C./A.D. dating system is based on (literally making him the most important HISTORICAL figure), is NOT a history book? Well, if you say so…
You’re cook book analogy fails, as a cook book, while not having anything about carpentry, is at least consistent relative to itself and the things written in it can be tried and proven.
You disagree with me, therefore I haven’t read the bible? Oh that’s mature… I don’t really care if you believe me as this is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable, so I’ll simply retort by saying I don’t think you’ve ever read Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and therefore know nothing of evolution. (If this seems like a stupid argument, that’s because it is.)
You said “second” twice, btw 
Butchered, you say? Well that makes sense given you’re talking about the WRONG theory. I’m NOT talking about string theory, I’m talking about M-theory. They’re connected, granted, but this is an extremely important distinction and one you should have made as I specified 11 spatial dimensions and not 10. To be honest, I’m pretty insulted to have someone who doesn’t know the difference between String theory and M-theory telling me that I’m miss-representing the theory. =/
Yes, there have been many scientific predictions that didn’t pan out upon testing, but the difference is if a scientific prediction fails it is rejected and corrected, whereas if something is found false in the bible, an apologist will spend years performing mental gymnastics until they can fit a camel through the eye of a needle, so to speak.[/quote]
M-Theory is just one hybrid of many of String Theory. Second, I hope it’s right, because it would prove a great deal of reality that is not sensible.
Have you ever read the bible? You’re making false assumptions on a book you never read.
It’s not a history book, it’s a whole lot of books with varied purpose and meaning. It’s weird to give a book report on a book you never read. [/quote]
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.
