March 30, 200719 yr My signature is but one example of thousands. Simply a recursive fractal. Nothing but repetition. Exactly, and look at the beauty of it. It's nothing compared to the beauty of a changed heart.
March 31, 200719 yr My signature is but one example of thousands. Simply a recursive fractal. Nothing but repetition. Exactly, and look at the beauty of it. It's nothing compared to the beauty of a changed heart. In your opinion. Beauty is subjective. I, like assassin I suppose, find beauty in many simple things. I find beauty in a four letter code (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine) that produces every living entity on this planet. No discovery of the physical universe will ever disprove the idea that there is something beyond the physical universe. But discoveries in the physical universe can disprove events which supposedly happened in the physical universe, i.e. genesis, the flood, [insert supernatural occurance on earth here]. But, of course, you could always have the defense that god did it.
March 31, 200719 yr But discoveries in the physical universe can disprove events which supposedly happened in the physical universe, i.e. genesis, the flood, [insert supernatural occurance on earth here]. But, of course, you could always have the defense that god did it. It's not a "defense," as you suggest - it's the very point I am making. Science can and will provide explanations to the physical causes of the universe - but no discovery will ever prove anything about a potential existence beyond this physical world. Compare, once again (but in more detail) a physicist and an anthropologist. The anthropologist, no matter how much he studies in his field, will never be able to explain the physics in the universe. He can explain why most societies on earth discriminated against women for thousands of years, but he can't explain (in his field of study) why when a man 1,000 years ago pushed his wife and she lost balance - she fell to the ground. No matter what discovery in the field of anthropology that is made, the anthropologist will never be able to explain gravity because gravity is outside of the realm of the study of anthropology. No matter how many discoveries are made in this physical universe by science, it will never be able to explain, prove, or disprove the existence of something beyond this physical existence. It just can't happen.
March 31, 200719 yr My signature is but one example of thousands. Simply a recursive fractal. Nothing but repetition. Exactly, and look at the beauty of it. It's nothing compared to the beauty of a changed heart. In your opinion. Beauty is subjective. I, like assassin I suppose, find beauty in many simple things. I find beauty in a four letter code (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine) that produces every living entity on this planet. I absolutely agree with you. I don't quite know what insane meant by a changed heart, since that could be anything to do with anything, but beauty is subjective, and I personally find far more beauty in science and nature than in religion. But discoveries in the physical universe can disprove events which supposedly happened in the physical universe, i.e. genesis, the flood, [insert supernatural occurance on earth here]. But, of course, you could always have the defense that god did it. It's not a "defense," as you suggest - it's the very point I am making. Science can and will provide explanations to the physical causes of the universe - but no discovery will ever prove anything about a potential existence beyond this physical world. Compare, once again (but in more detail) a physicist and an anthropologist. The anthropologist, no matter how much he studies in his field, will never be able to explain the physics in the universe. He can explain why most societies on earth discriminated against women for thousands of years, but he can't explain (in his field of study) why when a man 1,000 years ago pushed his wife and she lost balance - she fell to the ground. No matter what discovery in the field of anthropology that is made, the anthropologist will never be able to explain gravity because gravity is outside of the realm of the study of anthropology. No matter how many discoveries are made in this physical universe by science, it will never be able to explain, prove, or disprove the existence of something beyond this physical existence. It just can't happen. Your analogy isn't perfect though, it's not quite like that. I do agree that science cannot conceivably yet explain what lies outside our universe. But your agrument that that something lying outside the universe is God, which has a direct impact on our universe means that his existence is a scientific question. To argue that because we cannot conclusively disprove what lies outside our universe as a scientist doesn't mean that a philosopher has any more expertise in the matter (in a non-scientific way). To argue that even though the vast majority of evidence now points to the fact that we don't need a creator to exist or live, yet still think that there must be one because it lies outside science is ignorance, if you'll excuse the word. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
March 31, 200719 yr Slightly off-topic: I was wondering myself what it would take for me personally for the existance of (a) God 'to be proven'. I think a lot of sceptics will agree on the existance of (a) God, once proven of his existance. Something that will push them over the line of none-believing. If someone walks up to me on the street, claiming to be God, I'll tell him to go seek help. If I see someone on TV, I'll think the same. If I see that same person on all the channels on TV, I'll think the government is playing tricks with me. If I see something 'unnatural' happening in front of my eyes, I'll think to myself that I should stay away from alchohol. If I see something 'unnatural' happening on TV, I'll think to myself the special effects guys did a great job. For every manifestation I could come up with a rational explanation: fed by contemporary modern man's beliefs and science. Did mankind's progress make it inherently impossible for a God to be proven ? I know the religious answer to this one, how about fellow-sceptics ?
March 31, 200719 yr But discoveries in the physical universe can disprove events which supposedly happened in the physical universe, i.e. genesis, the flood, [insert supernatural occurance on earth here]. But, of course, you could always have the defense that god did it. It's not a "defense," as you suggest - it's the very point I am making. Science can and will provide explanations to the physical causes of the universe - but no discovery will ever prove anything about a potential existence beyond this physical world. I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with your point, I was expanding on it with a different idea.
March 31, 200719 yr I know the religious answer to this one, how about fellow-sceptics ? If I see a flying sheep (which has not been genetically manipulated :P) then God can convince me. :) I see insane just skipped my reply to his arguement that you need to change from the inside while that implies that religion is not the right answer to do that either. Unless you agreed with that ofcourse? The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+.
March 31, 200719 yr I don't know anyone below the age of 50 who believes in all that stuff a handful over 50 who believe in god or at least "Claim" to believe in him. I know if I were in their position I wouldn't want to admit I was wrong for over half a century. It will eventually die as time goes on and we find more and more answers to the universe people will move away from "God" Its human nature to seek answers and when we cannot find them our mind is inclined to invent other possibilities even those with no scientific merit. It is also human nature to cling to hope in desperate situations thats why people pray to god in the face of impossible odds or pray for a sick loved one Its a desperate grasp of hope, We as humans don't like to be out of control and powerless that is why many of us will pray in the hope that a higher being may hear us. Even Atheists have been known to pray in desperate situations not because they believe in a higher being but because its simply human nature not to accept that they are powerless to do ANYTHING. Al tho these prayers usually are not prayers in the Christian sense. Cant think of anything more for the time being. ~Dan64AuSince 27 Aug 2002
March 31, 200719 yr Religion supresses people. The argument it allows people to be who they are is ridiculous as it makes people follows rules which restrict their liberty. Religion supresses people? What context are you refering to? In the past, perhaps religion has been fought over the belief that there is a 'right' religion. But in reality all religion does is express peace and tranquility and goodwill to all men, nowadays that it much clearer. People like yourself like to look at how people have behaved in the past you aren't actually addressing the religion itself. Its not like you get arrested if you have belief in another religion anymore. Religion is supressing in the sense it enforces absolute morality down upon it's followers. I.e. A christian homosexual man may resist his ability to be himself because it goes against the supposed morality of the church. It does not enforce him in as much as if he is himself he will get arrested but he will feel shame, remorse and facing the idea of hell when he die's for being himself. Even though in being himself he should be happy, as long as those acts do not harm anyone else within society. Fear of the afterlife holds people prisoner to their own nature, and that is what religion preys on to various extents. Religion supresses liberty. Liberty is the most beautiful thing in the world. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
March 31, 200719 yr Yes its sad that people view and sometimes feel that Religion is imprisoning. However not all religious people are fundamentalists that believe others are inferior for their (taking your example) sexual orientation. I suppose this depends on your personal experience of religion, for example I'm Christian and am perfectly accepting of homosexuals, women, black people etc being part of the community. I understand that in the USA there is a alot of fundamentalism over the Bible, I don't know much about that to be honest. But people must remember that the Bible is 2000 year old book, life was alot different back then. Religion (and by Religion I assume we are focusing on Christianity) boils down to your personal interpretation of it which is another reason why I think it will never die out.
March 31, 200719 yr Guys, this is a thread on the topic of the future of religion. If you want to try to disprove religion, please take it to the appropriate thread. That being said, Assassin: I find beauty in nature too. The human body, for instance. Have you ever seen the inside of it? All those systems working in harmony, no space being wasted? For me, it's too perfect to have happened by chance (a la natural selection) and only affirms for me the existance of a higher power. Your fractal, as well. Can such perfection be attained by freak occurance? Math, physical science...it all just works too perfectly. And it is bound by natural laws. To me, that implies order. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley
March 31, 200719 yr It is not just about what other people think, it's the phycological imprisonment absolute morality from divine word entails. I'm not saying simply all christians fundementalists or liberalists do not accept people who don't follow their morality, I'm saying that since religion is so personal to the individual rules that are universal towards the condemning of immoral acts that don't hurt anyone hold no weight. Except from the individual who has been in some cases indoctrinated to beleive they are wrong, bad and will end up with eternal suffering in hell. A christian beleives the bible to be the truth, and fact from Gods own hand. It condems many acts which is deems to be immoral (even though they don't harm anyone) and therefore plants a stigma attached to those acts into christians heads. Again, i see people who "pick and choose" what rules in their religion to follow as a lot more rational, however things like Christianity need you to beleive it all or to beleive nothing of it. Picking common sense out of their and using it as if it is divine is ridiculous. Bari: You're not talking about the future of religion either, your going into a "everythings to perfect to be created by chance" argument which has nothing to do with the future of religion. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
March 31, 200719 yr I was going to debate about this, but I know nothing about Islam, so I won't. :-$ Then dont call all of us fundamentalists. It makes you seem ignorant. :-$ :wink: Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!
March 31, 200719 yr That being said, Assassin: I find beauty in nature too. The human body, for instance. Have you ever seen the inside of it? All those systems working in harmony, no space being wasted? For me, it's too perfect to have happened by chance (a la natural selection) and only affirms for me the existance of a higher power. Your fractal, as well. Can such perfection be attained by freak occurance? Math, physical science...it all just works too perfectly. And it is bound by natural laws. To me, that implies order. Why the Christian God then? Why not Allah, or Zeus, or Vishnu? "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
March 31, 200719 yr however things like Christianity need you to beleive it all or to beleive nothing of it. Picking common sense out of their and using it as if it is divine is ridiculous. Really? I don't agree. I view the Bible as a book of context reflecting the views of Jesus' disciples and followers, they arent all necessarily Jesus' views. Through their views I can interpret and accept my own views about him and how he spread God's word. As I said before the Bible is open for interpretation, which is why it will remain.
March 31, 200719 yr however things like Christianity need you to beleive it all or to beleive nothing of it. Picking common sense out of their and using it as if it is divine is ridiculous. Really? I don't agree. I view the Bible as a book of context reflecting the views of Jesus' disciples and followers, they arent all necessarily Jesus' views. Through their views I can interpret and accept my own views about him and how he spread God's word. As I said before the Bible is open for interpretation, which is why it will remain. So you get to be the one who decides what is true and what isn't?
March 31, 200719 yr Guys, this is a thread on the topic of the future of religion. If you want to try to disprove religion, please take it to the appropriate thread. That being said, Assassin: I find beauty in nature too. The human body, for instance. Have you ever seen the inside of it? All those systems working in harmony, no space being wasted? For me, it's too perfect to have happened by chance (a la natural selection) and only affirms for me the existance of a higher power. Your fractal, as well. Can such perfection be attained by freak occurance? Math, physical science...it all just works too perfectly. And it is bound by natural laws. To me, that implies order. Miracles and magic are no more than scientific phenomena we don't yet fully understand. Your just filling in the holes of ignorance (if they are really holes at all...) with whatever you want to, God in this case. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
March 31, 200719 yr Miracles and magic are no more than scientific phenomena we don't yet fully understand. Your just filling in the holes of ignorance (if they are really holes at all...) with whatever you want to, God in this case. What's an example of scientific phenomena that we fully understand that has filled the holes of ignorance and replaced my explanation that God is the ultimate causality?
March 31, 200719 yr To an extent. So who decides what extent that is? Well i've already explained that the Bible is written by the Disciples so is a book of context. Obviously when I mean extent I expect a sensible, rational person to discount the views that reflect context. But you're right it is ultimately up to you the reader to decide, probably why there are so many different strands to Christianity.
March 31, 200719 yr Well i've already explained that the Bible is written by the Disciples so is a book of context. Obviously when I mean extent I expect a sensible, rational person to discount the views that reflect context. But you're right it is ultimately up to you the reader to decide, probably why there are so many different strands to Christianity. I'm just trying to get an understanding on your belief. It is your belief that you get to pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, and that by doing so you are still a Christian. What if you were to pick and choose what you thought was accurate in and inaccurate in the Bible and I did the same thing. However, we find out that our beliefs on what is true in the Bible and what is false are exactly opposite. We don't share a single common belief. Are we both still Christians?
March 31, 200719 yr Miracles and magic are no more than scientific phenomena we don't yet fully understand. Your just filling in the holes of ignorance (if they are really holes at all...) with whatever you want to, God in this case. What's an example of scientific phenomena that we fully understand that has filled the holes of ignorance and replaced my explanation that God is the ultimate causality? How 'bout Roman theology? People never understood why volcano's erupted and spewed lava across the lands, so they said a god did it. That god may still exist, but we understand why volcano's erupt, making the idea of that god existing less sound as a belief. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
March 31, 200719 yr How 'bout Roman theology? People never understood why volcano's erupted and spewed lava across the lands, so they said a god did it. That god may still exist, but we understand why volcano's erupt, making the idea of that god existing less sound as a belief. You misunderstood my question. I believe God is the ultimate cause of our existence. You believe that God is just my way of filling in holes of ignorance that scientific phenomena will replace when we fully understand it. Don't give me an example that pertains to Roman theology, because I didn't ask about Roman theology. I asked about my belief that God is the ultimate cause of our existence. Give me an example of any scientific phenomena that when fully understandable, replaces my explanation that God as the ultimate cause..
March 31, 200719 yr How 'bout Roman theology? People never understood why volcano's erupted and spewed lava across the lands, so they said a god did it. That god may still exist, but we understand why volcano's erupt, making the idea of that god existing less sound as a belief. You misunderstood my question. I believe God is the ultimate cause of our existence. You believe that God is just my way of filling in holes of ignorance that scientific phenomena will replace when we fully understand it. Don't give me an example that pertains to Roman theology, because I didn't ask about Roman theology. I asked about my belief that God is the ultimate cause of our existence. Give me an example of any scientific phenomena that when fully understandable, replaces my explanation that God as the ultimate cause.. Well, once you get into "does God exist?", we'll just end with another 73 page debate that goes no where. Science is never going to be able to disprove that God, or gods, exist- I already said that. I just said we can explain those things that religion just doesn't desire to explain and just says "God did it." Anyways, I was referring to Barihawk's points of things seeming "perfect", when they both really aren't and are still explainable through science. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
Create an account or sign in to comment