OGTEleven
-
Posts
2,030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OGTEleven
-
-
Great news!
"Cerberus Capital Management said on Tuesday it was preparing to sell off its investment in gunmaker Freedom Group following mounting pressure from California's teachers' pension funds."
Does it strike anyone as odd that the teachers union is getting all high and mighty about this investment after the fact? If they felt so strongly why would they have made the investment in the first place?
-
I keep trying to wrap my head around what happened in Connecticut the other day and this seemed like a good place to look. I normally have a lot of opinions on things to blame and not to blame. I'm sure at some point I will have opinions on the arguments that arise from this about guns, mental health, schools and the media.
Right now I still don't have any opinions on any of it. Maybe it is because I have two young children, or maybe it is just the age of those poor kids that were taken from us. Parents or not, we can all relate in some way.
I always come back to the what if. What if this were my kid(s), or if it were me, and there was nothing that could stop it, what would I feel? The only answer is knowing that I would trade everything I have, including my life and all of its memories, to be able to spend one more minute with my kids. It makes me realize how blessed I am to not have to make any such trade.
There are 20 sets of parents yearning to make that trade right now, but they can't. All they can do is live there lives in a way that honors their children and hope that at the end of their own days, they will have a glorious reunion with their child. I pray for them that they will have this reunion.
-
It's been a long time since I logged in but I still lurk (put it this way my birthday is in February and I had a note from Mead when I logged in. Thanks Mead). I saw this thread and liked a lot of it. A song I heard today reminded me. I thought I'd add a couple from one of my favorite artists. even though I'm not a music expert on what qualifies as The Blues. The first one is a song I love called Baloney again. It seems bluesy to me but I'm not sure it qualifies. The second one is definitely Blues. Thanks for all the good links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gUV4UKWHA
-
Icehouse - Electric Blue
I always liked Icehouse but thought their best was We Can Get Together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzRCYjlIVYw
Another forgotten song I think exemplifies the 80s is Wouldn't It Be Good.
I wouldn't call it 80s music exactly, a lost Dire Straits gem is Tunnel of Love.
-
If there is no god,
So there is no free will.
UNLESS...
One subscribes to multiverse theory, which states that all possible "states" of the universe at any given time are represented in some parallel universe. Whenever a 'decision' is made (free will), a new universe is created or maybe just entered to accommodate that decision. I think of this like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. In this case, free will is actually possible because you are choosing your own path in a sense. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well either.
In the end, I'm not sure we'll ever know or if it even matters. We all have the intuitive sense that we have free will, and that seems to be enough. It will certainly twist one's head in knots thinking about it.
I can buy into a multiverse theory which says every action we make based on a decision "creates" a parallel universe. I actually have thought a lot about this with God. Without God I still come to the same conclusion (only bigger?). I create trillions upon trillions of universes by deciding to blow my nose or turn left/right. At the end of this thought process, I still come back to the free will itself being an illusion. It doesn't matter if trillions of "me" think they have free will or even if some me's were created by other me's.
Every decision I make spins out a universe. Meanwhile you are making a decsion. If both our decisions are yes/no, then the result is 4 universes more than an instant ago. There are billions on earth with free will and not every decision is yes/no, so the number of universes is staggering. This is before we even account for decisions being made in other worlds we have yet to discover. I can actually buy off on this no matter how big the number, but not with free will as part of the equation. If there are trillions of me, but each is subject to the laws of the multiverse which involve predictable interactions of matter and energy, then there is still zero free will by definition. Zero times a trillion-trillion is zero.
I still come to the same conclusion that an atheist must be resigned to predetermination. That's ok because as you say the illusion of free will may be enough. I just think it has to be recognized as an illusion by atheists.
I tried the link and I can get it to play but am having a hard time with the fast forwarding. I'll try it again when I have more time.
-
I always enjoy your responses and think you should post here more often.
I've thought a lot about the question of free will, and I don't think there is a good way to definitively prove or disprove predetermination either way. In the case where god exists, if god is omniscient and omnipotent, how can we possibly have free will? It seems to me that time is simply a variable and moving backward in time means returning the universe to the exact state it was at that time. Conversely, it seems to me that moving forward in time means advancing the universe to the exact state that it "will be" at that time. In other words, were it possible to travel backward and forward in time at will, then time is continuous and the state of the universe is predetermined at any point in time. If that's the case, there is no case for free will, just our perception of free will. It probably can't be answered either way, but I don't think you need god to have predetermination, just cause and effect.
Thanks for the nice words. I understand your thoughts about predetermination and whether it is consistent with the concept of God. There are certainly some points there which need to be addressed for believers. I have my thoughts but have no illusions that they could ever be proven.
Maybe I missed it in your post, but I personally cannnot come to grips with free will even being possible in a universe without God (an atheist universe if you will). I am interested in your thoughts about that. To me, if someone is an atheist, they simply must be someone who believes in predetermination. I'm not clear whether you believe that. I am not trying to set up some trap, just interested in your thoughts. If you even believe free will is a remote possibility, how could it be without God?
-
After 12 years of indoctrination and much struggle, I've obviously reached my conclusions. It wasn't easy, but instead rather scary, and all started with the type of questioning that you're referring to. I think that you don't just change somebody's mind about deeply held beliefs. It's a process which starts with a seed of doubt. The seed sometimes grows and leads to disbelief, which is where I ended up. Sometimes I think it's just too much for people to leave behind. In the end, to me, the truth is more important than anything else such as feeling you are special or that you and your loved ones will be reunited in the afterlife. Once I got past the scary part, I was able to find meaning, purpose and morality in my life with no need for supernatural beings upstairs watching my every move. My sometimes militant approach to this subject is intended to plant seeds of doubt using reason and logic. I feel like I owe a few people a great deal for doing the same for me and I intend to pass it on.
Question everything. What are you basing your belief on?
I am what some people would consider religious and others would not. I believe in God or at least I would be perceived to believe in God. I am aware that being religious, and/or belief in God requires faith. I have that faith. I can see a reasonable person having no faith in the existence of God. I can EASILY see someone not wanting to be religious or be affiliated with and organized religion.
Here is where I differ with you. Whether it is God as described by Catholics, Muslims or Jews, some other kind of God, or something altogether different, I do think that humans generally feel a connection to something. Basically, consciouseness makes us feel we are in control of things. We feel as if have free will. I can decide to sit down and watch the Bills play on Sunday for example. In the mind of an atheist, what is that consciouseness? How is it described? Is it real or is it an illusion?
I am wondering if the conclusions you've reached include a perception that you (and all of us) have free will. To me that notion is inherently inconsistent with atheism. If there is no God, then when all is said and done, the universe is made up of energy and matter. The reactions between this energy and matter, although complex, can be predicted. Over time we have learned, about light, gravity, chemistry and myriad other disciplines with increasing accuracy. We haven't met something we don't feel can be predicted (although we've met things we can't predict yet). This means all of the chemistry that goes on in our brains and triggers actions in our speech and movement and every other aspect of what we call life, can be predicted. It just can't be predicted by us. Basically, this amounts to predetermination. It really isn't too complex, but my perception of atheists is that not all of them subscribe to predetermination. Why not? How can there be free will; real free will without a real consciouseness. Is that consciousenss "God"?
Since you're into spreading seeds of doubt, here is an attempt to spread one to you.
Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic."You gave the thumbs up to that. Let me ask you something.
Why don’t I believe in free will? No, no no, why do YOU believe in free will? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.
Question everything. What are you basing your belief on?How can I question anything without free will?
I really have no idea why this topic is the one that seems to draw me in to posting. It is getting pretty annoying.
-
Here is another of her, singing a great Kristy McCall song...fine singer/songwriter in her own right!
youtube.com/watch?v=GonJsKMyIdA&feature=related
No apologies needed...I have been on an Emmylou Harris jag for a few weeks now...I can't say that I like her Daniel Lanois period stuff as much, although it is her most critically acclaimed...I think Lanois sucked the life out of her music. I love the early stuff, right up through the late 80's. Just got finished reading "Hickory Wind", the Gram Parsons bio, and it made me want to go back and listen to their duet stuff...high lonesome for sure!
I'm a big fan of Mark Knopfler. He and Emmylou did an entire CD of duets a few years back called All the Roadrunning. You may want to check it out. I was lucky enough to get to see a Knopfler show this spring and Pieta Brown, the daughter of Greg Brown (prominent songwriter) opened for him. She put on a nice show. It was just her and her guitarist Bo Ramsey.
-
Mark Knopfler played Buffalo the other night. I'm wondering if anyone went. I'd be interested in any reviews. I'll be seeing him in Albany next weekend and am really looking forward to it.
-
Knopfler - "Sultans" is one of those songs that I think has lost luster from overplay/familiarity - but then you hear it again and listen close and get blown away all over again. Used to love this band - some great solos on "Tunnel of Love", "Telegraph Road", "Once Upon a Time in the West" - God, now I want to pull out all my old Dire Straits CDs (LPs?)
(was always amazed the restraint Knopfler showed playing - you knew if he wanted he could go completely off the wall - but sometimes knowing when to be subtle can have such a stronger impact)Knopfler is my favorite. You may not be aware, but he has several post Dire Straits solo albums. He may be a better songwriter than guitarist. Check out the solo stuff if you haven't. It has a little bit of everything (rock, country - even a CD of duets with Emmylou Harris -, Bluegrass, story-telling, ballads, Blues and more.). There is always guitar and it is as restrained as you remember. Check out "Boom Like That", "Song for Sonny Liston", So Far From the Clyde", I'm the Fool (later covered by Randy Travis), "Heart Full of Holes", "In the Sky", "Silvertown Blues", "Sands of Nevada", and "5:15 AM"if you have to limit yourself. Don't limit yourself.
But for the guitar solo thread, I'll go with the solo on
He's touring the US in the spring and I'll get to see him for the first time. In case you can't tell from the post, I'm pretty psyched.
EDIT: "I'm the Fool" was not covered by Randy Travis. It was a song called "Are We in Trouble now?".
-
Get well soon John. Prayers to you and your family.
-
Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs?
Discuss if you like...
It makes me a little sad honestly because I always perceived Sagan to be a good guy and someone who was thoughtful and respectful of others.
In your quote he is far from it.
If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.I believe in God. I have never sought to prove God's existence to myself or to anyone else. If you ask me, I will explain why I believe (perhaps not well), but will never under any circumstances claim proof in a scientific manner (or any other manner really). I have no interest in pre-emptively bringing up my belief to you or anyone else. I very strongly expect to die believing in, but not knowing if God exists. As a matter of fact, I would be disappointed if God truly revealed himself before my death. I am not here to prove anything to anyone about God and ask for no proof.
Sagan's mocking dragon example talks of believers as if they are childish people, constantly stomping their feet and demanding to be heard. Of course, there are plenty of people like this (on both sides of any argument), but the vast majority of believers are not. That is why they call themselves believers, not knowers.
By going on and on with an example anyone could understand after three sentences he tries to paint believers with a broad brush. He puts words in their mouth and by doing so betrays his own deference to science. There is nothing wrong with his argument on the basis of the overly repeated facts. For the most part though, he is arguing against very few people and claims to be arguing against very many people.
To me this quote says Sagan was either a hack, a liar, or astonishingly arrogant. He was a hack if he failed to take the time to understand or acknowledge that most believers understand exactly what they are. He was a liar if he understood this and simply continued to use the same argument anyway. He was arrogant if he demanded that the dragon reveal himself, because after all, he was Carl Sagan and the dragon simply must recognize his importance. That's what makes me sad.
-
Thank you to all those who have served or who are still serving. To those who have lost their lives, saying thank you isn't enough and nothing is enough.
I found a nice video someone made on Youtube. It is set to a song which is one of my favorites.
-
I see it as another attempt by the gov't to protect idiots from themselves. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but I still think it reeks of the "It's not my fault crowd."
I am personally aware of a few companies hiriing "bloggers" to write "opinions" and to "report" on products (especially new ones) from their competition.
They will write things like "We hear that XYZ company can't get product ABC to connect to their network", or "bechmarks indicate severe performance degradation with a workload over x level." The rep for the hiring company will then go into an account and say "I saw in a blog that my competition's product is failing; you might want to check out this link".
The connection between the company and the blogger is typically difficult to trace or prove. The "facts" in the blog are completely and totally made up. These companies are taking advantage of the perceived neutrality of blogs. In truth, they are writing the false blogs themselves. This is being done by at least one comapny whose sales force has a reputation as less than credible. Pointing to a random blogger actually tends to bolster thier credibility (how sad is that?).
Part of me says this should be a buyer beware scenario, but the practice of hiring "bloggers" like this is certainly unethical to say the least. I don't know if it is illegal, but I think it probably should be.
-
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
Here he protests that other people misrepresent how atheists feel about life. His main argument is to misrepresent how religious people feel about life and its meaning.
I'm sure there are people both atheist and religious that feel life is meaningless. I have not personally met either. I can't remember ever reading or hearing a religious person say that atheists believe life is meaningless. Maybe I missed all the prejudice on this one.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
Again I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say that atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. But again he turns the argument 180 degrees. He seems to be trying to say is that horrible acts that were committed by atheists were committed because those atheists got too religious. How would future atheists avoids this fate?
He says that there is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. He fails to give an example of any human society that was ever reasonable. He doesn't even try to show that human nature will allow it. I contend, but cannot prove, that if all religion were forgotten tomorrow that other reasons would quickly pop up to justify cruel acts. This is not meant to pin it on atheism at all, but no one should pretend that atheism could solve these woes.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
The bolded part is a misrepresentation and he has to know it. If he used the word "some" he could get away with it. If he is so adept with logic, why would he need to resort to wild generalizations like that?
Is he really saying all atheists have given complete thought to their position? All atheists have read the Koran and the Bible? Really?
As for Roberts, his observation dismisses the many similarities in the world's great religions (by great I mean large, not terrific). If some scientists believe Mars has water and some believe it does not, I would not conclude that scientists are actually skeptical regarding the existence of Mars. To agree on a topic do we have to agree on every single component?
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.I don't have any argument with him here but I'm not sure the point he wants to prove.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
Did he really end a sentence with "is"?
I have never heard anyone make the claim that atheism is incompatible with science. I would have to ask what he means by connection to decide whether or not I agree.
6) Atheists are arrogant.When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it.Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.
The bolded part is absolutely absurd. I believe in God. I am fully and completely aware that I do not know that he exists. 100%. Personally, I am glad that I do not know and hope to never know (until I die). Some people claim to know but not all religious people make that claim. If his arguments are so strong, why must he make false claims about others?
As for humility and arrogance, I think all people claiming to be humble are arrogant. That goes for atheists and religious people.
I have heard people claim that atheists are arrogant and have probably made that claim myself. For me it is derived from the definition of atheism which has a connotation of certainty. With certainty (on any topic) comes arrogance.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.
I don't think atheists are closed to things like love, awe, etc; but I wonder what they think about it. I think the concept of free will is incompatible with atheism. If atheism is correct then everything can be explained by science, even if we don't understand all the aspects of science at present. We may perceive free will, love, joy and other emotions but they cannot be real. This goes especially for free will. These things would merely be the results of chemical and molecular reactions that are predicatable and unstoppable. I believe that atheists can experience love, but I'm not sure how an atheist can believe this.
I watched a few of the videos in the other thread and although Harris did not address free will in the ones I watched, he did appear to start at one point. He said something along the lines of "if you believe in free will" and sort of smirked. I don't know his opinion here.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.
From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.
I don't think he really understands religion. He certainly does not understand all religious people. Of course there is immense beauty in the universe as a whole. There is also immense beauty in every individual being or thing in the universe. Is the beauty of the immense universe more or less than the beauty of a person thinking or a microbe clinging to life in adverse conditions or a rock? How can you quantify such things?
I don't believe this market is cornered by the religious or the atheist.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.
In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?
How are atheists going to convince people to help the poor? If we all become atheists will we all be magically wonderful?
Religion has had a role in shaping society as has atheism (smaller). Human nature as a whole has a far greater role than either IMO.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.
by Sam Harris
To refute the claim that atheism provides no basis for morality he attempts to demonstrate that religion does not provide a basis for morality. That can be argued, but even if you say religion provides no basis whatsoever for morality and has not at any time in history, he has still done nothing to say that atheism does. He does not even appear to be trying to refute the original claim (which he made up to begin with ). I'm supposed to respect this guy's use of logic? Really?
-
Gotta love Sam Harris.
I sure don't know about that. As you may have guessed, I'm not a big fan but my comment comes not from a disagreement with his beliefs rather from his misuse of logic. Based on the original post in this thread, I would rather be on the other side of a debate than be on Harris' team, regardless of topic. It is too long to get into now but I'll post a reply to the list when I'm able.
-
AgreedI really like this conversation.I'm not going to disagree with you too much here, but I think your argument illustrates a point about human nature that helps the argument for religion being made up by humans. I would say that we are hard-wired to think this way - to invent excuses for violence and persecution, a byproduct of human evolution. It's easy for me to see where religion possibly comes from when viewed from that angle.Not agreed. At least not completely. Of course each individual religion is made up by man. Most would even admit it to some extent. Religions have also been used widely as excuses for violence and other inexcusable acts by both individuals and groups. But religion has also been used to curb acts of violence and inexcusable acts. It has definitely helped to instill a sense of morality in many people over several centuries. Weighing the good and bad is an impossible task. Personally I think the good outweighs the bad but can understand why others disagree. The only way to know for sure would be to have alternate realities with and without religion.
Religions often speak of ones personal relationship with God. IMO, people can have this whether they "belong" to a formal religion or not, but the individual's perception of God in a direct manner is most important. The formality of the religion can be used in a positive or negative way for large groups. To me, critics of religion focus on the bad that has come while zealots focus on the good and demonize the critics. Both miss the point that the group is far less important than the individual.
Not all Christians are anti-Evolution. Intelligent Design is Creationism re-branded to fit into a science classroom. I'll assume you agree that Creationism is an extension of religion and is by definition supernatural. Science does not deal with supernatural, so Intelligent Design has no place in a science classroom. The Discovery Institute and organizations like it are being purposely deceptive and are attempting to teach our children bad science based on religion. I am very much against this. Their position is not defensive in this slightest. Within the scientific community there is absolutely no controversy about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design because, again, ID cannot be a scientific theory and Evolution has a mountain of hard evidence behind it.To me ID is a defense (a bad one and in most cases misplaced but a defense nonetheless). I do not think it belongs in a classroom but also don't think that over-interpretaion of Darwinism belongs. I have been in long arguments about that topic here and in the end always had to agree to disagree. I am of the opinion that some who adhere to the theory of evolution see it as proof that God is a myth (not all). It is most definitely used as a mechanism to mock religion and Christianity in particular. Much like Christians using the Bible to justify violence I think some Darwinists have misunderstood their own theory.
I would never say that I know just about anything for certain, making me agnostic. I would see the likelihood of any one modern (or ancient) religion getting it right as near zero. I can conceive of a god who started our Universe into motion and let it go from there. I do not think this god would have to have any supernatural power, would need to still exist, or would even have any influence at all over its creation. Anything more than that and I feel like I would only be deceiving myself. I do not think that one can make oneself believe in such things.I don't know why any religion should be expected to be perfect more than any scientific theory should. I can understand being frustrated with people that interpret it as perfect or even a sects claims of its perfection but if you're waiting for the perfect religion or perfect unified scientific theory, you're going to be waiting a while. I think organized religion has a place to help be a set of guideposts. There can be many routes to the same destination. To me, the utility in organized religion is similar to the utility of scientific publications.
You would not expect an idividual to come up with theories on evolution, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. on their own. What others have learned can help give a scientists a head start and guideposts.
Religious teachings can be used in a similar way.
Both science and religion can be used in dangerous ways either accidentally or purposefully.
I don't think people can make themselves believe in something nor should they try. They also shouldn't close off avenues which may result in belief.
I don't think anybody can say for certain whether or not free will is real or an illusion. It's certainly an interesting subject that leads to many interesting scenarios. I guess I'll say that if time is just a variable, a fourth dimension, then perhaps we are just moving along forward and backward through space and time. If you were able to treat reality like your DVR, would people appear to move through the same space as time rolls backward and forward? If they're confined to that position in space at a given time, do they really have free will? It's all very cool stuff and much more interesting than any alternative I've ever heard of.I agree that it is interesting but strongly believe (not know, believe) that I have free will. It is one of the coponents for me believing in God because I believe without God there simply cannot be free will. Maybe it's only a perception. Who knows?
Almost completely off topic the one paranormal anamoly I find most strange is people nearly dying and seeing the lighted tunnel. To me it does not jive with God or with atheism. If there is a God why would he not be able to erase the dying person's memory of the event? Would God not know the person was going to live through the episode? If there is no God why would the brain need to play tricks on itself? Wouldn't it have better things to do while trying to avoid death?
-
And for all of you pop psychologists with nothing but your own intuition and "experience with atheists" to go on, please don't try to pigeonhole me as someone who had a bad experience or became disillusioned with the church. You don't know what motivates me.
I grew up Catholic, attended 12 years of Catholic school and never had a bad experience with anyone in that system or in any other context pertaining to religion. I have a loving family, a good job and a very satisfying life to this point. Outside of family, friends, sports, etc... the only thing that really matters to me is truth. I consider myself a Skeptic and don't buy into the garbage that most people accept as fact without first applying critical thought. This is what led my to my current views on god and religion. The wars, bigotry and problems that religion has caused since it has been around has made me more than just agnostic. The scandals within the Catholic Church, especially the seeming predilection for priests to be pedophiles, has made it easy to abandon that entity. The Intelligent Design movement and its battle against Evolution has pushed me further toward being what some of you would consider a militant atheist.
None of this really matters. My motivations or anyone else's motivations do not affect the truth about religion. You may not like me or what I think. You may want to say I'm a bigot or whatever, but that doesn't change anything at all in this conversation.
The truth is that religion is, always was and always will be supernatural and irrational. This is a fact and nothing you can say about me or anything else will change that fact. This is not a disparaging remark. It is the truth.
I'll make no judgments about your atheism or how it impacts you but I do have a few questions and disagreements.
My disagreements mainly lie in religion being the cause of so many problems. While I'll agree that religion is often (not always) used as the justification, it is not used as the cause (at least not in my view). If someone has a goal and it involves killing someone to achieve it, the would be killer will always look for justification because killing is seen as wrong by most every person. I will grant you that religion is often a convenient justification, but that does not mean another can't be found. History has demonstrated this. A lot of conservatives call environmentalism a "religion". I can partially agree with that. Environmentalism has also been used as an excuse for violence. This does not make environmentalism itself pointless or wrong. If religion, environmentalism, and all the modern excuses for violence were wiped from Earth tomorrow and erased from everyone's memory banks, my bet is that new excuses would pop up very quickly.
I also disagree (partially) with your opinion on the intelligent design crowd. I do see it as a very weak argument but also see it as having been spawned by a relentless attack on religion. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive yet many "religious people" and "evolutionists" see them as so. The word and description of God has been under scrutiny for several decades when used in schools and public places. Personally, I see an agenda being driven by the left toward that goal and a defense by the right. There is a wide area for disagreement here and I understand that. It's just the way I see it.
I understand what you wrote above and am not trying to analyze you (you told me not to) but am curious about something. You explain how you became agnostic. I undestand that. You stated that the intelligent design crowd pushed you to be "more than just agnostic". That could mean that you're agnostic and really annoyed with religions and/or that you not only have doubts about God but are certain there is no God. Which is it?
My question only applies if you're truly an atheist (you're sure God does not exist). If so, are you equally sure that free will is merely an illusion. The radio piece implied this on a small scale saying that decisions were impacted. It did not go so far as to say decisions were an illusion. It did reference a book that appeared to make that case. I wonder if that book's author thinks he chose to write it in the first place. By extension, if free will is an illusion what is real? Emotion? Consciousness? Or is it only matter and energy?
I certainly agree that religion is supernatural. I'm pretty sure the Pope would agree too. Different people define irrational in different ways so I'm not sure what to say about that.
-
I'm not sure why, but I always seem to get drawn into this type of discussion.
For the sake of disclosure I believe in God and even in a particular God. Although I disagree, I can understand how atheists come to some of their conclusions. I fully understand that my belief in God is a belief, and not knowledge. I watched the first Dawkins video which is interesting but does not seem to me to address God at all (despite its title).
My major question for atheists is why so many of them seem to believe in and assert the concept of free will. To me, if there is no God, free will along with many other concepts becomes a mere perception, not a reality. We'd all have to be a collection of atoms which are behaving in predictable manner the way atoms do. It may not be predictable by us, but it has to be predictable. If it is, our fates are all pre-determined and free will is an illusion. I see and hear many atheists espousing all sorts of concepts but pre-determination is not one of them and certainly not the primary notion. Dawkins in his video talks about how we can or should approach viewing the world; what we may be able to do better train ourselves as a species to evolve outside Middle World, and several other seemingly noble tasks, but he never throws up his arms and says we can't help ourselves. How can free will truly exist in his world? I would guess a vast majority of believers and non-believers in God believe in free will. To me this belief is more compatible with God than with no God. If an atheist argues pre-determination, his argument holds more water.
There are billions of people who believe in God and probably not two who believe in exactly the same thing. One of the strongest facets of my belief is that if God were good at his job, he would make himself unprovable (Thanks God). If he walked down the street saving everyone from oncoming buses, what would be the point?
The thought that religion is the major cause for global strife and violence is odd to me. It has certainly played a role in history, but if we all magically became atheists tomorrow I see very little chance of violence disappearing. There are plenty of examples of violence (mass and individual) that have nothing to do with religion. If you're looking for a core reason for war, persecution, holocaust, and other ugliness I'd suggest blaming human nature, not religion. Religion has certainly served as an excuse, but excuses are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.
-
So what are the answers, man?!!!
Posted back up at the top.
-
2. Jennifer Connelly
3. Roy Halladay
4. NE wins big, but the next day the victory is taken away from them when it is discovered Bill Belichick had a secret microphone stuffed up Dick Jauron's ass for the last 4 years.
5. 2.5...or a full 2.0 more than Schobel/Kelsay/Denney combined.
2. WRONG!!!!!!
3. WRONG!!!!! and double WRONG!!!!!!
4. Jauron has an ass? WRONG!!!!!
5. Why is EVERYONE all over Schobel? WRONG!!!!!!!
-
-
The thread is dying. Last chance before I post the CORRECT answers.
-
1. Done
2. Bar Rafaeli
3. your divorce lawyer (fantasy baseball is a waste of time)
4. All smart bettors who parlay the Pats win BIG
5. 7
2. WRONG!!!!!
3. I have offered no opinion of fantasy baseball's value and expect no opinions in the replies. I expect answers. WRONG!!!!!!
4. Fantasy baseball is wasting time but betting on football is productive? WRONG!!!!!!
5. WRONG!!!!!!
Idiots Abound
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by OGTEleven
I believe in God and find your post interesting. With respect to the part of your post I bolded I have to disagree with you on one thing. If there were no free will, only perceived free will, why would more than one possibility exist? The illusion of free will notwithstanding, our predetermined choices would all still collectively lead to only one (admittedly highly complex) outcome. I can buy the concept of time being our perception and everything existing at once either with God or without God existing. I can't get there with respect to all possibilities existing simultaneously at once without including free will in the equation. This is because without free will there is but one possibility. Am I missing something here?
To me free will can only exist with God, not without him.
As for the study I only skimmed it and must have misunderstood it. Care to summarize? I interpreted it as saying the subconscious tells the conscious what to do. In other words you think about moving your arm and then your arm moves. There must be more to it than that.