Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Deliverance]

ah, how did i know you'd be one of anti global warming types.

Ummm, never mentioned global warming, so not sure what this is about.


personally i love how you site an article from behind a payroll as proof of systemic corruption (along with your oh so personal anecdotal evidence) then deliberately leave out the reason those retractions came about is that publications were considered horse s**t by most scientists in the field. it was looked into and exposed for its fraudulent nature by the very people you claim just go along with everything for ideological reasons.



Search harder and you'll find plenty on peer review fraud. It's just the tip.
I'm assuming you meant paywall there, and I have had personal experience in the field first hand and I'm assuming you have and have seen the lack of ethics that exists there.


as for Patrick Mathew, He never produced a working model his 1831 book never delved into workings of natural selection he merely sighted that natural selection was the most likely mechanism by which evolution followed. Yes he was correct in his reasoning, But what he printed was nowhere near detailed enough to be called an actual scientific theory.


Yes, the old "if you discover something first it doesn't count unless you convince the community of it" argument. Again, there is plenty of evidence that Darwin and his counterparts "borrowed" heavily from Matthew. I'd like to reiterate, I'm not discounting Darwins work.


By that notion we may as well look at Maupertuis and say **** it, he was robbed! Because as far as i can tell he was the first one propose the general notion of species changing over generations. Tell me do you also think Koch ripped off Pasteur?


Yes, there were plenty of stories in scientific history of people being robbed, by others who sold the story better. Watson and Crock for example. But hey, it depends on which story you believe. Starting to sound like religion, no?



apparently in your studies at the highest levels of science they never taught you the very basics, take no ones word for it. Its the very reason why the world remembers issac newton instead of robert hook, Because newton was able to demonstrate what hook had been arguing.

Attempting to argue darwin ripped mathew off is doing exactly what you've claimed as systemic within the "highest levels of the scientific community" you've glossed over the general issues in order to make it fit with your position.



Yes I agree, take no one's word for it, which you seem to be proposing in relation to science. Let's just follow the most famous names and ignore the lesser lights.



and on top of all of this none of this has anything to do with the fact religion should not be taught as science. It's not science, it's theology and that is all it ever will be. The erosion of the separation of between theological teachings and historical and scientific study at numerous religious schools is dangerous and damages the career paths of students as they are being given false information.



Plenty of students are given the wrong information in regards to Science as well. Its quite often taught as dogma. Many science teachers are less open minded than RE teachers in my experience in the education system. But please feel free to list all the schools you can categorically state are teaching religion as science.



I mean you really think kids should be taught that two of every single animal jumped on a boat to survive a global flood is an actual historical event?


No. And I've never seen this taught in any schools in AUS or OS.



Because thats the conversation being discussed when you reacted like a fundie, Getting all defensive and trying to shift the topic away from the influence the american evangelicals are currently exploiting in many christian schools in this country.

all over a topic you apparently give so little of a s**t about, that you can't decide where you sit in regards to it.


I know where I sit. I can't prove or disprove the existence of a God, or fairies, or aliens. And neither can you. But at least I'm open minded enough to accept other people's beliefs and have tolerance for them.

 

[AM]

We might be betting but there is no bookie. My biggest issue with Pascal's wager is why a God-like entity would give a s**t about whether some pea-brain consciousnesses believed in its existence.

But, but , but, isn't she supposed to care about all of us?

 

[Boston tiger]

But, but , but, isn't she supposed to care about all of us?

All still a massive bonus though when you think there is no reason for us being here. Biggest fluke ever so just enjoy every second.

 

[CM86]

All still a massive bonus though when you think there is no reason for us being here. Biggest fluke ever so just enjoy every second.

Excellent.
Now that you've realised that you're alive by chance, and that you should just enjoy life while you have it, you won't need to try and look for some hidden meaning or reason to be here.

 

[Boston tiger]

Excellent.
Now that you've realised that you're alive by chance, and that you should just enjoy life while you have it, you won't need to try and look for some hidden meaning or reason to be here.

Thanks for that. Good to see that your just here to help.

 

[Boston tiger]

You're*

 

[AM]

All still a massive bonus though when you think there is no reason for us being here. Biggest fluke ever so just enjoy every second.

Think it's called the Big Bang theory.

 

[Boston tiger]

Think it's called the Big Bang theory.

So she just went bang all of sudden. Well that's cleared everything up.

 

[CM86]

So she just went bang all of sudden. Well that's cleared everything up.

Insightful.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Insightful.

Equally as insightful as the Christian notion of genesis.

 

[Boston tiger]

The Bible has been mentioned. Beam me up Scotty.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Do we all agree that.. no God = everything is by accident. Eg any beginning was by accident or if there was no beginning that was by accident as well etc

Can all this be possible without the supernatural being involved?

Will we ever be able to answer this question ? Or will it always be beyond us ?

What do you reckon?

One question too many?

The best answer I've come across to this conundrum is: That we cannot circumvent the metaphysical grounds of our own being!

It's an excellent question. And since the rise of Darwinism it represents the ultimate either/or existential poser.

Marx argued that God was the opium of the masses, Freud saw the concept as one of wish-fulfillment & delusion....Whereas Nietzsche argued that we had 'killed God' both within ourselves, our society & each other, in our modern world of chasing false-idols....We no longer grant nor honor the divine in ourselves/ the world & others.

I much prefer the existentialists position, for at least they bring the question back to ground zero: Man's ultimate place in the universe in our search for meaning/identity.

We all, each of us, have an ultimate choice....We are either God's children or we are Cosmic Orphan's!

Both positions are equally plausible & require a 'leap of faith' so to speak; as ultimately, we don't know the answer!....Contentment seems the best we can hope for.

Although the footy Gods sure favors the Hawks of late.

 

[AM]

So she just went bang all of sudden. Well that's cleared everything up.

Your ignorance of the theory is almost palpable. There are many Christian theoligal scholars who would contend the theory is not inconsistent with their beliefs.

 

[skilts]

Whereas Nietzsche argued that we had 'killed God' both within ourselves, our society & each other, in our modern world of chasing false-idols....We no longer grant nor honor the divine in ourselves/ the world & others.

I much prefer the existentialists position, for at least they bring the question back to ground zero: Man's ultimate place in the universe in our search for meaning/identity.

First off, thanks for your thoughts. A most entertaining and, at times, insightful post. The interpretation you put on Nietzsche's argument about 'the death of god' is not one I've before encountered. I would have thought that he was more saying that with the slaying of all gods, we are reduced to our own devices when we think about how we are conducting our existences. The true loneliness of that existence.

It is generally accepted that Nietzsche's corpus is among the first written in the so-called existential tradition. It could be argued that there is nothing within that so-called tradition which is not influenced and informed by his thought.

 

[Procrastinator35]

First off, thanks for your thoughts. A most entertaining and, at times, insightful post. The interpretation you put on Nietzsche's argument about 'the death of god' is not one I've before encountered. I would have thought that he was more saying that with the slaying of all gods, we are reduced to our own devices when we think about how we are conducting our existences. The true loneliness of that existence.

It is generally accepted that Nietzsche's corpus is among the first written in the so-called existential tradition. It could be argued that there is nothing within that so-called tradition which is not influenced and informed by his thought.

Cheers for that.

I could talk about Nietzsche all night, for it was he & his 'philosophizing' which informed the principal subject of my PHd thesis....Yes, the interpretation is my own & definitely represents Nietzsche's position on the matter in it's most positive light.

The highlighted section of your first paragraph reminds me of the famous Dostoevsky quote in Crime & punishment. 'Without God, anything is permissible'.... A haunting reminder that conscience is a fragile thing & our only tool of discernment to what is right/wrong & what is good/evil.

Yes, Nietzsche is definitely the father of the post-modern movement, including the psycho-analytical school of Freud/Jung....However, it is Soren Kirkegaard, the Danish Protestant Christian, to whom the title: 'First Existentialist philosopher' belongs. His seminal works : 'Fear & Trembling' & 'Sickness unto Death' being the earliest examples of the genre....Exploring man's place in the burgeoning capitalist world of Amsterdam at that time.

In fact, most existentialist thought is borne out of the protestant mind-set. Which is no co-incidence, with the ensuing rush of the industrial revolution & the concomitant shift of man's thinking about his place in the world echoing it's arrival....The dominant answer to which was one of alienation/neurosis....Adorno & Horkheimer's 'Capitalism & Schizophrenia' is the perfect exemplar thereof.

 

[Lester Burnham]

But, but , but, isn't she supposed to care about all of us?

No.

 

[skilts]

Yes, the interpretation is my own & definitely represents Nietzsche's position on the matter in it's most positive light.

Why would you find this necessary? In which way is it what you wrote positive?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Sorry I meant to call them all faith. We believe in a certain God or leprechaun etc because we believe someone. ( I text away on my iPhone so sorry for the slackness )

I think this has come about from someone saying we have a God because we have a Bible or Koran etc. And I have gone down a.. which come first the chicken or the egg? path.

Somehow put humans in a box with no contact with the outside world ever and they will come up with a God concept. They won't need to believe anyone or make claim they felt God or saw an angel etc.
They won't come up with a leprechaun or a Lochness monster. You need to see a little flash of green to go past your back garden for a Leprechaun to come about. Or a big splash in a Lake for a Lochness monster etc. / or someone just taking the piss.
Likewise if someone in the box thinks deeply about the God and claims to be touched by this God and says somethings that resonate with in you then you are in a different area where you become influenced by others perception of God. You believe them likewise you believe someone who saw a ghost or leprechaun. And Bingo you have a religion.

I guess the situation that I keep talking about is that we have been created so the God question is always with us. If Im created then there must be a great unknown power involved etc. Even if we know that we are just changed energy states etc.We still need a creator

I'm sure too that others in the box would not come up with a creator type but would think of other ways we may have got here. Some of course would just say I don't know because I don't have enough info.

Superstitions come and go, different religions come and go.The God concept is here forever.
.... all the answers can't be found with in this universe so almost by definition the answer is going to be unnatural.
So me thinks.



(God )first then religion.

your still thinking in the terms that you were created, The idea that if something exists then there must have been motive behind it.
step outside of that for a moment and that argument is pushed aside, that there is greater reason for your existence at all, you simply exist based on a particular set of circumstance and are of no importance simply by being alive.

also consider that their has always been and always will be people who don't believe, Your statement about a box is just as true for those that do not default to god. (this is seen in writings from basically every society which had writing) non belief is not some swanky new age concept afforded by luxury.

Its the reason why many religions say kill those that don't believe in god, because by centring your state around a god your state only functions for as long as that god is believed in.

understand also that your concept of a god is not universal many of the things we call deities are nothing of the sort a great example is of titans of ancient Greece. Which in the classical greek era was used as a negative thing and they tried to shape the context of what the titans were to match with their pantheon of gods.

the actual titans themselves were understood to be personifications of different things people encountered such as winds, earth, fire, etc. its where the modern concept of gaia worship comes from, the supporters of the classical greek, tales who loved their gods wanted to illustrate that the old beliefs were wrong so spun them into their tales twisting what they once were.

another example is of course the rainbow serpent, now you look on many sites around the internet and you'll find many different accounts of the story so understand i'm not stating this is objectively true of every account of this story. But the tribe i belong to tells the tale of Myndie who moves across the land making rivers and watering holes, yadda, yadda, yadda. Most people know the story. But Myndie was no deity in fact the way the elders tell it makes it extremely hard to put into words at least for me anyway because its such a strange context but basically in the terms of reality Myndie does not exist, the tales are told (there's 4 tales we were taught about Mydnie in total) to give a greater understanding of the land, weather, season and the history* of the people.

In fact nowhere in any of the stories i was told did anything approaching what you would call a god or deity ever come up. it was just not a part of that culture because the people and this universe were one and the same thing, the people are an aspect of existence itself.

*not really the right word, the whole "time" part of dream time doesn't exist its off track and complicated. basically there's no chronology at all and the stories aren't talking about somethings that happened or is happening but both. its extremely hard to explain for me anyway.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Why would you find this necessary? In which way is it what you wrote positive?

Because there is so much misrepresentation surrounding Nietzsche, particularly from within academia & from staunch orthodox Christians in general. Why? For it is both they & all systemic ways of thinking, which Nietzsche aims his most insightful & deconstructionist critiques of. And he takes no prisoners.

It's positive from the perspective of grasping Nietzsche's thought from ground zero....What do I mean by this?....Without holding any prejudices or presuppositions....Hence his concept of nihilism, as a perspective of divine innocence & strength to avoid falling into the trap & pitfalls of conceptual generalization; which splits mankind off from the real-world before him. If we strip modern-man of all his ignorance, prejudices & learned education, what we are left with is a divine, noble & sacred being: Untouched, untainted & untrammeled by the degeneracy & insidious homogenizing effects of modern society upon the soul: Roussea's Noble Savage if you will.

 

[AM]

No.

So she picks and chooses does she?

 

[Lester Burnham]

So she picks and chooses does she?

Yes.

 

[AM]

Yes.

So the bit in the Bible's prologue in which most theological commentaries on the Bible say otherwise is wrong?

Let me quote you one:

" The symbol of the coats and skins which God made for the man and the woman (3:21) implies God's providential care for all mankind . Sinful, wayward, wilful, ignorant though they may be, all men everywhere are God's concern"

And the bit about Christ dying for all is a misreading too?

It's self righteous fundamentalists like your goodself who have helped turn people like me into agnostics. Of course there's the compelling scientific evidence of work such as that of eminent theoretical physicist Prof Paul Davies too.

 

[Lester Burnham]

So the bit in the Bible's prologue in which most theological commentaries on the Bible say otherwise is wrong?

Let me quote you one:

" The symbol of the coats and skins which God made for the man and the woman (3:21) implies God's providential care for all mankind . Sinful, wayward, wilful, ignorant though they may be, all men everywhere are God's concern"

And the bit about Christ dying for all is a misreading too?

The basis for Pascal's wager was that only believers go to heaven. There's is plenty of confirmation to be found in the bible for this belief. Eg
Luke 18:18-23.

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.​

It's self righteous fundamentalists like your goodself who have helped turn people like me into agnostics. Of course there's the compelling scientific evidence of work such as that of eminent theoretical physicist Prof Paul Davies too.

I'm not sure what you are accusing me of here. I'm agnostic also but for all practical purposes I'm an atheist. Some comments by Paul Davies were the basis for a thread I started a while back.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/god-does-not-exist-yet.1084004/#post-36416091

 

[CM86]

I'm agnostic

lel

 

[apparentlydead]

cancat is an agnostic?

For those who buy that, please PM me, I have some weight loss tea that is guaranteed to work.