Religion

[icon124]

sophocles07 face it...theocrat has you cornered. It doesn't matter what you say...as long as Theocrat has that belief of intelligibilty you could never prove his opinion wrong lol...that doesn't mean you have to believe it though

 

[Hiki]

Erm... I'm not very good in english so could somebody explain to me in common tongue what the hell theocrat is talking about?

 

[Kade]

Erm... I'm not very good in english so could somebody explain to me in common tongue what the hell theocrat is talking about?

You can't know anything for sure unless you admit to Theocrat that his version of reality is correct.

 

[FreeTraveler]

If you throw out logic, you're left with opinion. If opinion is all that is left, then the truth is defined by the smoothest speaker, or the one who can cow others into believing he's speaking "truth." This is the reason that governments and churches are no friend of the process of scientific discovery.

Theocrat is the logical progression of giving up your ability to reason and depending on someone's opinion as fact.

It amazes me when people who refuse to accept the concept of natural selection over eons have no trouble accepting an all-powerful being who has always existed and will alway exist. At least there is some proof of the former.

 

[Kade]

If you throw out logic, you're left with opinion. If opinion is all that is left, then the truth is defined by the smoothest speaker, or the one who can cow others into believing he's speaking "truth." This is the reason that governments and churches are no friend of the process of scientific discovery.

Theocrat is the logical progression of giving up your ability to reason and depending on someone's opinion as fact.

It amazes me when people who refuse to accept the concept of natural selection over eons have no trouble accepting an all-powerful being who has always existed and will alway exist. At least there is some proof of the former.

QFT.

Aww, reason is so truly refreshing. It brings a tear to my eye... seriously.

 

[Theocrat]

Bittersweet Truth

Erm... I'm not very good in english so could somebody explain to me in common tongue what the hell theocrat is talking about?

I was basically saying that God is the necessary starting Point in order for there to be absolute standards and objective truth in the universe.

You can't know anything for sure unless you admit to Theocrat that his version of reality is correct.

You must be blind because I never wrote anything of the sort. I said no one can know anything for sure in any absolute, authoritative way without assuming God's existence at the forefront. My version of reality is moot; I'm focused on the truth of God's reality as based on His divine, personal, and specific revelation, the Holy Bible.

If you throw out logic, you're left with opinion. If opinion is all that is left, then the truth is defined by the smoothest speaker, or the one who can cow others into believing he's speaking "truth." This is the reason that governments and churches are no friend of the process of scientific discovery.

Theocrat is the logical progression of giving up your ability to reason and depending on someone's opinion as fact.

It amazes me when people who refuse to accept the concept of natural selection over eons have no trouble accepting an all-powerful being who has always existed and will alway exist. At least there is some proof of the former.

I believe in logic and reason, but these things don't justify themselves. They are measured by the standards of God's thinking, and they reflect how He expects us humans, who are created in His image and likeness, to think and reason in order to make sense of the world He created as well as His own character.

No one can scientifically prove the laws of logic because they don't function in that way. As abstract, universal, and invariant entities, the laws of logic are experienced in a much different way than physical/biological bodies. You can't put the laws of logic in a test tube or look at them underneath a microscope, for instance. The laws of logic cannot be observed in any empirical sense in the natural world, yet they are meaningful in how humans think and make rational judgments. Because we have souls which are immaterial (spiritual) like the laws of logic, we can use the laws of logic to make sense of the world as uniform standards of reasoning.

But, if we assume there is no God (thus, eliminating the absolute Standard or Origin for all realms of knowledge in the universe) and assume that all the universe is is natural, physical, and tangible entities subject to random chance and impersonal forces and changes, then how then do you justify or make sense of logic, morality, or even laws in general which are, by their own nature, immaterial (not able to be utilized with the five senses), universal (applicable everywhere or understood by all), and invariant (non-changing)? I submit to you, once again, that it is only the Christian religion which can rightly answer and account for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature in a absolute and objective way, due to the revealed and divine nature of our God, Who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

 

[FreeTraveler]

No one can scientifically prove the laws of logic because they don't function in that way.

This is undoubtedly the most absurd statement I have ever read on any bulletin board or forum, and I've been on the 'net for over 25 years.

Logic is how physical laws, such as the law of gravity, are derived. If you doubt the physical manifestation of logic, go take a long walk off a short pier, and let me know how that goes.

 

[jmdrake]

omg! Incoming! Duck!

Incoming ducks

Originally developed under the codename Blue Duck, Ikara was a successful design from Australia. Its role was to deliver a Mk 44 or 46 homing torpedo to a target area faster than a helicopter. With a range of around 11 miles Ikara enhanced the anti-submarine capabilities of small warships.

Bad pun I know.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Theocrat]

Clarification

This is undoubtedly the most absurd statement I have ever read on any bulletin board or forum, and I've been on the 'net for over 25 years.

Logic is how physical laws, such as the law of gravity, are derived. If you doubt the physical manifestation of logic, go take a long walk off a short pier, and let me know how that goes.

Maybe you didn't read the rest of the paragraph in which I wrote that statement, but I explained in broad strokes why the laws of logic cannot be scientifically proven. Also, I think you're confusing the laws of logic with scientific laws. The former are used as standards to measure arguments and how one reasons, whereas the latter are used as standards of measuring and understanding the physical realms of the universe.

 

[Dr.3D]

Is it ok to shout "fire" in a crowded theater...if the theater is actually on fire?

Having worked for a time in a movie theater, I found even if there were to be a fire, they had a code word in the theater for the word fire. They would say something like, 'Mr. Strife is back stage.". This would mean there was a fire back stage. So I guess it is not a good idea to shout fire in a crowded theater. It is best to try for an orderly evacuation.

 

[Hiki]

Mr Theocrat, you're now engaging in philosophy which I would categorize as "stupid and absolutely pointless philosophy". Believe me, I just had the first course of philosophy in high school and even though we had some interesting stuff there, we also had these absolutely ridicolous debates.

What you're now describing is the impossibility of science to prove the existence of logic. Well, what is love? (Baby dont huurt mee.. Sorry) Science also cant explain love because it's not a material entity. Logic, love, anger, reason, moral... The list goes on of these entities which dont exist in a sense where we could prove these things with a scientific method. But then again numbers dont exist in a material sense aswell. You cant prove that "three" exists scientifically, you cant describe "three". And I really cant remember what "-ism" this stuff represented in philosophy but I do remember that it was the most awful stuff I've ever had to deal with in school. Does evolve your ability to THINK though, which is why I think philosophy is a very important subject in school.

And again I cant see how these things prove the existence of god. And we atheists are no more different from you christians expect for one more god in a looooong list of gods, Jahve.

e. http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/gods-we-dont-believe-in.jpg Yes I know Buddha isn't a god but otherwise it's a neat list.

 

[justatrey]

I think most religions require faith. My understanding of faith is that it requires the acceptance of beliefs which are not demonstrable through experimentation, logic, or reason.

So basically I think religion is something people practice more often to comfort themselves rather than to find out what the truth is. I'm more concerned about truth than comforting myself so I don't practice religion. If the truth is that we are here simply by chance and when we die we sieze to exist and simply go into the ground and decompose then so be it. I'd rather figure this out than fool myself into believing that some all-knowing all-loving creature put us here, everything happens for a reason, and I'm going to live in eternal paradise when I die.

With that said, I have no clue what the truth is.

 

[jmdrake]

Having worked for a time in a movie theater, I found even if there were to be a fire, they had a code word in the theater for the word fire. They would say something like, 'Mr. Strife is back stage.". This would mean there was a fire back stage. So I guess it is not a good idea to shout fire in a crowded theater. It is best to try for an orderly evacuation.

LOL. Talk about thread redirection. Yes orderly evacuations are better than disorderly ones. And it's nice that employees have "codewords" so that they can work together smoothly. On the flip side people have died from others being "overly calm". Look at 9/11. Forget the conspiracy theories for a minute. People who had already evacuated tower two were told "go back to work". Sure hindsight is "20/20" but I would have given people the day off simply based on general principle. Or the email that was sent out after the first Virginia Tech shooting telling students to go on with classes even though 2 students had already been shot and nobody was sure whether or not the gunman had left campus.

Anyway, my sig is based on the fallacy of the "crowded theater" analogy when it comes to free speech. Sometimes you don't have time for "orderly evacuations". That's why there are air raid sirens, tornado sirens etc. If you lived in Israel facing an incoming missile strike and people in your theater died because you didn't inform them in a timely manner that would be as bad as someone getting trampled. The real for me is if someone is acting in good faith. Maybe their actions didn't have the best possible result but were they acting in good faith? Telling lies is not protected speech (after all there are laws against perjury, libel and slander). But telling the truth as you believe it should always be protected even if there are possible negative consequences to the truth.

And for the record the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy was first used to justify the government prosecuting someone for speaking out against a war.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

want to find God for real???

turn everything off; tv, computer, eyelids (close them), radio, books, people, dogma, Ron Paul, RPFs, everything. If you find it uncomfortable to be in the dark alone by yourself, follow that feeling.

sit comfortably and become aware of only your breath. 'God' has always been with you. Find out who you truly are to know.

 

[Theocrat]

Philosophy Is What Philosophy Does (or Believes)

Mr Theocrat, you're now engaging in philosophy which I would categorize as "stupid and absolutely pointless philosophy". Believe me, I just had the first course of philosophy in high school and even though we had some interesting stuff there, we also had these absolutely ridicolous debates.

What you're now describing is the impossibility of science to prove the existence of logic. Well, what is love? (Baby dont huurt mee.. Sorry) Science also cant explain love because it's not a material entity. Logic, love, anger, reason, moral... The list goes on of these entities which dont exist in a sense where we could prove these things with a scientific method. But then again numbers dont exist in a material sense aswell. You cant prove that "three" exists scientifically, you cant describe "three". And I really cant remember what "-ism" this stuff represented in philosophy but I do remember that it was the most awful stuff I've ever had to deal with in school. Does evolve your ability to THINK though, which is why I think philosophy is a very important subject in school.

And again I cant see how these things prove the existence of god. And we atheists are no more different from you christians expect for one more god in a looooong list of gods, Jahve.

e. http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/gods-we-dont-believe-in.jpg Yes I know Buddha isn't a god but otherwise it's a neat list.

I see religion and philosophy as being similar to one another. Everyone has some philosophy by which he or she understands truth in the universe and lives his or her life. Even those who hate or believe in no philosophy have a philosophy, which is a philosophy of non-belief in philosophy or its importance.

In the Christian worldview, those gods listed in your link are simply false gods (idols) invented by sinful men in rebellion against the one true God, Yahweh, and they are in violation of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments. God has declared in His word, "Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me" (Isaiah 46:9). Jesus also declares, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). So it's pretty clear, at least in the Christian worldview, that our God is the only true God. People may not like that nor agree with it, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter.

For clarity's sake, I'll just say that the Christian claims about God (as revealed in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible) are absolutely and objectively true of God's nature and character, necessary to understand anything in the universe, and those who reject those claims are reduced to absurdity. This means that the God of the Bible is and remains true whether you or I believe it or not because its verity is not contingent upon our assent to its propositions, practices, or lack thereof.

 

[LittleLightShining]

I think most religions require faith. My understanding of faith is that it requires the acceptance of beliefs which are not demonstrable through experimentation, logic, or reason.

So basically I think religion is something people practice more often to comfort themselves rather than to find out what the truth is. I'm more concerned about truth than comforting myself so I don't practice religion. If the truth is that we are here simply by chance and when we die we sieze to exist and simply go into the ground and decompose then so be it. I'd rather figure this out than fool myself into believing that some all-knowing all-loving creature put us here, everything happens for a reason, and I'm going to live in eternal paradise when I die.

With that said, I have no clue what the truth is.

I'm not trying to play the guilt card or the fear card here, but what if you're wrong? What if the whole point of existence is faith?

 

[OptionsTrader]

The human mind is just too beautiful and great to be electric impulses.

How far down the neural complexity ladder do you need to go such that you could believe the lifeform does not require an omnipotent being to have created its nervous system of information processing?

• Chimpanzee?
• Dolphin?
• Gorilla?
• Hamster?
• Frog?
• Earthworm?
• Flatworm?
• Single celled organisms?
• Quasi-alive viruses?
• The marvelous Water molecule whose chemical structure polarity allows different chemicals in the ocean to be manipulated in nearly infinite ways allowing for nearly infinite combination trials over billions of years?
• Quarks with spin (bits of information)?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Humans are master of the world. I would like to conquer the universe, that would be good. We can't sit on Earth forever, you know. I'm a believer in evolution and I think that people shouldn't be forced into anything, weather it be religion or evolution, even the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[OptionsTrader]

Thanks yongrel, you beat me to it.

Sophocles, try to be respectful of fellow supporters. You're simply being arrogant.

I see that there are a few topics on this forum where you call some people arrogant when you disagree. A natural response to vocal opposition perhaps. I find it interesting.

 

[Dr.3D]

How far down the neural complexity ladder do you need to go such that you could believe the lifeform does not require an omnipotent being to have created its nervous system of information processing?

• Chimpanzee?
• Dolphin?
• Gorilla?
• Hamster?
• Frog?
• Earthworm?
• Flatworm?
• Single celled organisms?
• Quasi-alive viruses?
• The marvelous Water molecule whose chemical structure polarity allows different chemicals in the ocean to be manipulated in nearly infinite ways allowing for nearly infinite combination trials over billions of years?
• Quarks with spin (bits of information)?

Even the amoeba needs to have a creator. Otherwise, entropy would prohibit it from existing .