Belief in God

[Jeremy1952]

deadcity12 Quote:please explain how love is more real than godThere is a concept called "love" and a concept called "god". The concept called "love" refers to an actual physical thing: in this case a pattern of neural connections and hormonal levels in a living being, with identifiable and testable attributes. (People in love behave differently from other people). The concept called "god" refers to... nothing at all. It stops at the level of concept; there is no referent in the physical universe.Quote:As, also please explain how god and santa clause are analogousPeople believe in them; they are said to have attributes that are known to be impossible and do things that cannot be done. Each is a character of the human imagination, invented to fill particular needs or desires of human beings, and each is better explained in terms of psychology than in terms of anything concrete.Quote:Quote: "spent most of my life studying both the methods and results of science" many who have not, still have this faith--this is what i was speaking to, not necessarily any particular individual here.In the modern world, we are surrounded by science's poor stepsister, Technology; it allows even those with no knowledge of science to see for themselves that it works.Quote:also, could you not have studied both the methods and results of a particular religious tradition and learned to be "confident" in its results and conclusions?No. Since all religions are false and all gods impossible, it doesn't mater which one you studied; real, measurable results are never achieved and the conclusions are always based on air.Quote:note: i present these questions only to further the dialogue---no offense should be takenNone taken! This is my idea of fun. If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

[Mr. P]

Quote:Etc. Oh, they don't say they know every detail... but it seems to me that the whole purpose of religion is pretending to have the ultimate answer Bingo...it has always seemed to me that religion discourages asking any questions. You just gotta accept the answers God (the church/leaders/yadda) give you.It is a shameful promotion of ignorance.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

[tagold]

Quote: Quote: Quote: (From RickU) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Religion explains everything. Just not rationally...and without proof. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, actually I haven't met any religion so far that claimed such thingWell, I must beg to differ again. In my experience they all do. "God created everything". Isn't that one, massive explanation of everything?Well, I guess this depends on what to understand under "explanation".For me statements like "There is always cause for everything what happens" or "All nature's laws and processes can be mathematically described" while universal in its claims don't seam to be claims to describe everything. I do not see the difference in this regard with "God created everything" statement. Do you? Quote:... but it seems to me that the whole purpose of religion is pretending to have the ultimate answerWhy "pretending"? They for sure have "ultimate answer", it is another question whether it is correct one or not. My point was they do not try to give answer to everything but to quite a few questions. Yes some of this questions are quite fundamental in there effect on one's everyday life but this doesn't make them "the only questions".

[Jeremy1952]

At the atheist meetup last night, someone asked the question, "why does it seem that atheists are mostly former jews or roman catholics?"I gave the question some thought, and answered that the reasons are different. Judaism has always encouraged education, learning, and questioning. Pat agreement isn't part of the religon. There are a few things that are beyond questioning, but not many. So it seems to me that this tradition opened the door to a godless understanding of our world.Roman catholics, on the other hand, are at the other extreme. Their religion is so conservative that it does not adapt to the changing world the way other religions do. I don't say this as a bad thing, by the way. I actually respect RC's more than other christians for "sticking to their guns". Because there is a market place of religon, and religions are being selected by a process very similar to biological natural selection; and although this leads to succesfful religions, where is the truth in it all? If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

[Jeremy1952]

tagoldQuote:For me statements like "There is always cause for everything what happens" or "All nature's laws and processes can be mathematically described" while universal in its claims don't seam to be claims to describe everything. I do not see the difference in this regard with "God created everything" statement. Do you?Absolutely. "God created" is a specific claim of causality. There is no causality in "processes can be mathematically described"; which, by the way, is impossible to prove and may not be true, anyway Quote:Why "pretending"? They for sure have "ultimate answer", it is another question whether it is correct one or notI suppose this hinges on one's usage of the word "sex", I mean, "answer". "To have an answer" is a phrase which, to me, implies a true/valid answer, not just any old answer. Because if you don't think it is true why bother having it? If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

[tagold]

Quote:Bingo...it has always seemed to me that religion discourages asking any questions. You just gotta accept the answers God (the church/leaders/yadda) give you.I heard such prejudices about religion several times in the past but never got adequate explanations for their grounds.At least I can not see much ground for such claim in history. (Yes, there were isolated conflicts between science and religion establishments at times but not to the scale to draw such conclusion).And also the percentage of scientist who are theist I guess should disqualify the idea "religion discourages asking any questions" or seeking answers to these questions.

[Mr. P]

Quote:At least I can not see much ground for such claim in history. (Yes, there were isolated conflicts between science and religion establishments at times but not to the scale to draw such conclusion).There may be few examples that made a splash, like Copernicus and Galileo, but there are others...and I would assume more that never even got to the point of a historical text. Like roaches and mice, if ya see one, your already infested.By just by examining the few that were big, look at how blatantly ignorant the side of the church was. Flat Earth? Geocentrism? (To this day, there exists a society dedicated to a flat earth reality!)Then we have the Inquisition, an attempt to dissuade though contrary to church teachings. The office of the Inquisition was not officially closed until 1968.I admit that I rely often on my intuition/experience in this regard.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

[tagold]

Quote:Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For me statements like "There is always cause for everything what happens" or "All nature's laws and processes can be mathematically described" while universal in its claims don't seam to be claims to describe everything. I do not see the difference in this regard with "God created everything" statement. Do you?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Absolutely. "God created" is a specific claim of causality. There is no causality in "processes can be mathematically described"; which, by the way, is impossible to prove and may not be true, anyway Sorry, its seems to me that I'm loosing your point. Do you really trying to say that for you in order something to be claiming describing everything it needs make the "specific claims of causality"? It doesn't make a lot of sense for me.For me something to "explains everything" means that it gives me framework and methodology to find answer to any questions I theoretically might come across. Like what would be result of particular chemical reaction or what maximum load the given bridge can handle etc. In reality time to find such answer could be to big to make it practical, but it must be still theoretical possible. Do you see anything wrong with such definition/understanding of "explains everything". Quote:"To have an answer" is a phrase which, to me, implies a true/valid answer, not just any old answer. Because if you don't think it is true why bother having it?First, you can have answer which you do not know whether it is true or not. This happens all the time in science.Second, you can have answer that you think is true, but somebody else thinks is wrong. I'm sure you were in such situation before.

[tagold]

I'm sorry. I'm about to leave for small vacation. I'll be back in the office next Monday. And hope that we will continue our conversation.

[Mr. P]

BRING A LAPTOP MISTER!!!!lolHave fun!Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.