J
- Status
J
Jesusaves777
Guest
Awesome quotes!!! My i add them?
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
It didn’t seem to be any more off-topic than any of the subjects Jesusaves777 introduced into the discussion which you thought were “spectacular” and to which you seemed to be inviting a response.Just one quick question. How is your question related to the topic?
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
Merry Christmas
God bless
T
tonyrey
Guest
In such a negative atmosphere it is not surprising that I negated myself with a double negative! The statement should of course be:
You are the one who’s trying to argue that we should care about everyone even though we’re incapable of controlling any one - not even number one!
T
tonyrey
Guest
I didn’t assert or even imply that your question is off-topic. I simply asked **how **it is related…
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Just one quick question. How is your question related to the topic?
The answer provides me with a useful context in which to view Jesusaves777’s previous responses.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Which response(s) in particular is (are) related to the age of the universe - and why?
The answer provides me with a useful context in which to view Jesusaves777’s previous responses.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
As I wrote, the answer provides context for any of her/his previous responses.
J
Jesusaves777
Guest
In this discussion, we were talking about Creation and evolution…that has everything to do with the subject. How old is the earth? Who really cares, I don’t! That’s not really the goal. Also, I have talked to atheists before and that’s usually the question they ask when all of their assumptions have failed.
S
Sair
Guest
Why not just come right out and say that you believe in design because you really want there to be a story behind your existence, and something to give meaning and justification to all the horrendous things that happen in the world, and a way to extrapolate from the good and beautiful things that there’s a benevolent deity who has your individual interests at heart? That you want there to be an ultimate justification for your condemnation of actions you personally find distasteful? Admit that your reasons for believing in design are less rational than emotive. This would at least lend more honesty to your attempts at refuting my posts.It’s far more likely that a quantum vacuum exists in the atheist’s mind - given that she rejects its very existence!
Such a state of affairs is an ideal solution for those who require nothing but human (name removed by moderator)ut in explaining **this **universe!
A far more convenient entity which neatly disposes of any rational foundation for intelligence, creativity and benevolence, thereby providing a perfect carte blanche for “free” thought and “free love”…
S
Sair
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
Sair
Guest
Perhaps because they were deeply indoctrinated in religious faith, and subscribed to the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ concept put forward by the likes of Stephen J Gould. I note also that none on your list are evolutionary biologists…
Well, this sounds like an admission of divine irrelevance to me.
In keeping with my supposition above, Lord Kelvin did much of his significant scientific work prior to the publication of Darwin’s work.
And how much more amazed he might have been had he been able to study, as 20th and 21st-century microbiologists have, the evolution of various strains of bacteria…
Planck did not necessarily believe in a personal god - he might be considered more a pantheist than otherwise.
Thompson, an Anglican, does indeed seem to have believed that the role of science was to elucidate the workings of God.
Heisenberg’s ideas about religious faith seem to be quite interesting and very complex - although raised as a devout Lutheran, he questioned the idea of God as more transcendent than imminent, and the idea of mind and matter as separate entities.
Compton, a committed Presbyterian, seems to have appreciated quantum mechanics precisely because it allowed sufficient uncertainty to include God as a possible causal agent in the universe.
Born converted - probably in name only - from Judaism to Lutheranism due to socio-political pressure, it seems, and led a rather miserable life, also one subject to depression. Indeed, if he were at all inclined towards atheism, it might well not have been science that led him in that direction…
Yes, it is a few - but there are plenty more who go the other way, especially in contemporary scientific circles. A couple of things need to be pointed out, of course - quoting a handful of scientists, eminent though they may be, with regard to their beliefs about God, does not constitute evidence of God - you’ll notice that none of the quotations you furnished stated that science actually demonstrates the existence of God, merely allows scope for some form of belief. Secondly, and as I intimated above, there’s a difference between an emotional attachment to a religious belief, stemming from childhood experience and familiar stories, and a belief that is thoroughly grounded in evidence (not merely not contradicted by the evidence). All the scientists you quote were raised in religious families; your argument would carry a lot more weight if you could demonstrate some significant number of atheists who were persuaded to religious belief by their scientific investigations…
S
Sair
Guest
Perhaps I don’t come out and say so because I don’t deliberately peddle falsehoods. I could not be further from believing that I am the author of my existence. Instead, I give credit where it is due, rather than subscribing to a self-edifying story of human significance such as that provided by most theistic religions. I don’t believe there is a higher humanoid being (and let’s be honest - most people’s notions of God are crafted upon a thoroughly human framework) who has overarching intentions for my life. Instead, I believe firmly that if I want my life to have meaning, I have to create it through my own actions - not selfish, self-serving actions, but actions that recognise that I am part of a much larger reality. And “without obstacles”? Really? Do you think the only obstacles to living a thoroughly dissipated life are provided by a God looking disapprovingly over your shoulder?
Of course you would see it that way. You think the only obstacle to leading a thoroughly dissipated life is to have a disapproving God looking over your shoulder…because that is the only thing, in your view - apparently, based on what you’ve offered as an ‘argument’ here - that allows other beings to have value, right?
Since you won’t speak it openly, I will - polyamorous relationships, and the valuing of nonhuman animals, are rational precisely because they contribute to our emotional well-being. It is not rational to deny onesself and others the pleasures and comforts to be had in this world because one believes we are destined to have all we want in an undemonstrable post-death existence.
Yes! The number of times you have accused me and others of ad hominem is ample demonstration of this…
Your ‘parody’ failed, then. Firstly because I have never held that humans are purely or even primarily rational animals; secondly because - as I just mentioned above - you have been quick to accuse me of ad hominem, as usual, rather than recognising the point of my post - that you do indeed rely upon emotive reasons to justify your belief in design, even though you will not admit as much.
Firstly, the whole notion of the ‘worship of inanimate matter’ represents a thorough misunderstanding of what naturalistic pantheism entails. It most certainly is not worship in the manner encouraged by theistic religions - of self-abasement before the supposed ‘perfection’ of a transcendent being. It is simply a recognition of our dependence upon the natural universe for our existence, and a reverence for the power and intricacy of natural phenomena.
Secondly, you have demonstrated amply through this post and others that your arguments for design are neither unemotional nor unprejudiced - your ascetic condemnation of ‘free thought’ and ‘free love’ is but one example; your continual insistence, without evidence, explanation or consideration, that qualities such as intelligence, creativity and benevolence can only exist as themselves entire, without constituent parts, is another.
T
tonyrey
Guest
No one has accused you of doing so…
No one has asserted that you do…
To be precise, you give credit where you **think **it is due.
A misrepresentation. **Most **people are not so foolish as you believe.
Without explaining **how **you have the power to do so when you believe you are a cog in a machine.
The implication that others who reject your beliefs are selfish and self-serving needs justification.
If you are simply a part of the inanimate universe how can you control yourself?
That is only a fantasy on your part. What are the obstacles if there is no higher moral authority than yourself? Your negative interpretation of God corresponds perfectly to your negative view that life is ultimately valueless and pointless.
A pointless remark that may equally well be applied to the one who makes it.
A false assertion without foundation.
Unlike materialists I believe goodness and justice are not human conventions but facts.
You would certainly have objected if I had specified what you** think **I had in mind! In fact my statement applies to **all **physical urges and desires, not the one you single out for special attention! -
A false dilemma. Our emotional well-being is the consequence of living as we are intended to do: in accordance with the Golden Rule - which has no **rational **basis in an accidental existence.
“ascetic” made me laugh! You are the first person who has used that term about me in my entire life!
Please specify the parts of intelligent, creative and benevolent **persons - **and explain how they are integrated.
S
Sair
Guest
The implication in your post was quite clear.
As do we all - I simply don’t believe that credit is due to a transcendent intelligence for which there is no evidence; I also don’t believe credit is due to me alone for what happens in my life.
It’s not a matter of foolishness - it’s a matter of the limits of human perception. We conceive of intelligence, necessarily, as human-like intelligence. This is the reason we have to be careful when studying nonhuman animals; why the God represented in the Bible is recognisably human in emotional terms, and even some physical terms. Humans are the yardstick of intelligence - when the intelligence of God is discussed, it is either discussed in human terms or, when it becomes too difficult to reconcile with human interests, is dismissed as being completely beyond human understanding…
I’m not sure I can furnish any explanation if the only alternatives I’m given to work with are a free-floating self or a ‘mindless’ cog.
My intention was not to imply anything about others or their beliefs, but about the suggestion that my rejection of belief in God is a product of selfish desires.
The universe is not ‘inanimate’! As I’ve said before, the constituent parts of ‘me’ are still me, even if they don’t amount to a free-floating soul.
It’s not a matter of me being the highest moral ‘authority’ - it’s a matter of me being the locus of interpretation, the processor of all the information that leads to any moral decision. No matter what external influences or coercions that act upon my person, my person is still the entity that does the acting in any given circumstance. In that regard, it makes no sense to say that I am my own highest moral ‘authority’, since anything external to which I respond may be more pressing than any impulse generated from within my own body. The possible obstacles to my exercising my own unfettered desires are many, but the notion of a god watching me is not one of them.
As I’ve pointed out many a time before, it doesn’t matter that my life, or anyone’s, is ultimately valueless or pointless on a cosmic scale. Our concerns in life are much more immediate than any notion of eternity, and that immediacy is the realm within which our actions really matter.
I concede it may equally well be applied to me, in relative context, since I’ve made my position clear regarding my belief in a personal god. As to whether it’s pointless, I think it’s as well to point out that the assertions we respectively take to be obvious are, in fact, heavily influenced by our own perspectives…
S
Sair
Guest
Not wholly without foundation - you have asserted in the past you believe atheists have no foundation for morality other than pure selfishness.
If so, they are facts about humans, facts about how humans interact with each other, facts about how we (in general, on average) respond emotionally to certain states of affairs.
Then all physical urges and desires are inherently objectionable? Or, at least, to be subordinated to other sorts of urges and desires? What might the latter be, exactly?
Who intends us to live in such a way? And of course it has a rational basis in an ‘accidental’ existence, as I described - we act in such a way as to maximise our well-being. As it happens, treating others as we prefer to be treated is, on average, the most successful means to ensuring that we are treated well in our turn. What could be more rational, in the light of our inherent emotional needs?
Perhaps so - and perhaps in relation to my attitudes, yours are more ascetic; certainly more bound to beliefs regarding adherence to what is called (largely erroneously, I believe) ‘natural law’.
How many parts would you like me to specify? The primary area of concern is the nervous system with its constituent parts; neural connections, extending throughout various parts of a body that functions both as a tool for manipulating the external environment, and a powerhouse for maintaining life; these neural connections, with their furthest extension in sensory perceptive organs, allow for intimate interaction with others as well as the rest of the environment. In many organisms, a complex (to varying degrees) brain acts as control and storage centre for information gleaned from both the internal and external environments of the organism in question.
There is no evidence that intelligence and creativity exist in the absence of complex brains and nervous systems. The idea they could is a remnant of a dualistic view of the world and humans that holds an immaterial soul or mind or whatever the ‘nonphysical’ part of a person is supposed to be, to be the seat of consciousness and intelligence and personality and so forth. This concept of ‘mind-stuff’ ignores mounting evidence pointing to the mind being a function of complex arrangements of matter and energy, namely brains and nervous systems.
- Status