What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Uh huh. I’ve ranked every poster in this board in terms of their passion for knowledge. Turns out you’re actually last.

 

I get that it's like shooting fish in a barrel with this guy right now, but we've already established:

 

1. We can beat him at his argument without insulting him.

2. His argument that nothing is provable means he can't prove it, either, thus nullifying it.

 

We could literally just put #2 on repeat every time he shows up with that nonsense and then continue to ignore him. 

 

I get that in someway he deserves a clown pounding every time he comes incorrect on this or other issues, but I specifically asked ya'll not to do that in here (and I'm trying my best not to as well).  Please stop or at least do it somewhere else (which I actually don't want you do either, but you're a grown ass man, I can't tell you what to do), he's just going to come back and risk derailing this thread when you do attack him (right or wrong).  I'm still waiting for his responses on the three items you asked him.  I'm convinced he doesn't want to do that because of how badly that would go for him, even for someone that wants to burn the whole thing to the ground.  It does seem like if he believes in anything, its self-preservation.

 

 

 

I can't keep coming in here and trying to keep this thing from steering out of control, and this isn't some arrogant statement like I'm the only who can, I'm depending on and challenging ya'll do that without me if ya'll decide to keep going.  I want to take some time off, too, and if I come back and this thread is on page 16 or some ****, I'll have a horrible feeling as to why and there's nothing I can do about it. Please show that this wasn't a mistake : /

 

Edit:  If ya'll don't want to talk about it anymore, either, that's fine, too, think we have more then enough to start with anyway in terms of what different people believe and reasonable reasons to why.  

Edited April 9, 2018 by Renegade7

[thinwhiteduke]

5 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Uh huh. I’ve ranked every poster in this board in terms of their passion for knowledge. Turns out you’re actually last. Automatically believing everything is a lie without doing any sort of research or providing any evidence doesn’t make you smart or a free thinker. It’s dumb, it’s lazy, and it proves you to be every bit the automaton that you like to accuse everyone else of being.

 

BOWIE: ”Global warming, Russian interference in our election, and the Parkland massacre are all fake!!!”

 

ME: “Oh wow. How did you discover that?”

 

BOWIE: “I didn’t. I knew it as soon as I heard about it.”

 

ME: “So you have nothing to support that?”

 

BOWIE: “Support isn’t real! There’s no such thing as evidence or proof or facts. I’M THE SMART ONE!!!”

Lol you've ranked people based on your belief in the propaganda  fed to you, that you believe. That doesn't qualify as knowledge. My last 3 posts to you redundantly  explain that but you still can't grasp it? My last 2 posts just now are the most logical thing said in here. You are still using faith and belief whether it's about God or your view of logic. 

You still have poor reading comprehension.  Where did I say everything was a lie? Everything?  Yes, you can actually know  something by thinking about it. You still fall victim to thinking that you need approval to believe something. You  need to look something up to accept as fact.you are incapable of thinking for yourself. I know religion is false because I was involved first hand. I don't need the acceptance of a group as you do, to know I am right. You have group think. I have actual independent  thought. Wisdom is the ability  to discern by yourself, within yourself. 

 The bible  is in fact a constant contradiction. God says even if he appeared,  no one would believe it was him,  so he cant/wont. All you have to do is believe...even though believing doesn't work in any other aspect of life for anything else ...he loves me but made rules  that would send me to eternal hell....etc... no, the parent  to child argument  doesn't work because that's not eternity...

Edited April 9, 2018 by thinwhiteduke

[Llevron]

I know you are but what am I?

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Lol you've ranked people based on your belief in the propaganda  fed to you, that you believe. That doesn't qualify as knowledge. My last 3 posts to you redundantly  explain that but you still can't grasp it? My last 2 posts just now are the most logical thing said in here. You are still using faith and belief whether it's about God or your view of logic. 

You still have poor reading comprehension.  Where did I say everything was a lie? Everything?  Yes, you can actually know  something by thinking about it. You still fall victim to thinking that you need approval to believe something. You  need to look something up to accept as fact.you are incapable of thinking for yourself. I know religion is false because I was involved first hand. I don't need the acceptance of a group as you do, to know I am right. You have group think. I have actual independent  thought. Wisdom is the ability  to discern by yourself, within yourself. 

 The bible  is in fact a constant contradiction. God says even if he appeared,  no one would believe it was him,  so he cant/wont. All you have to do is believe...even though believing doesn't work in any other aspect of life for anything else ...he loves me but made rules  that would send me to eternal hell....etc... no, the parent  to child argument  doesn't work because that's not eternity...

 

1.  Clearly, thought alone is not sufficient to reveal true truths.  Aristotle thought about physics and the Universe.  Aristotelian physics is badly flawed, and he believe in a Earth-centric universe (essentially either Aristotle is wrong or everybody since Newton is wrong).  Linus Pauling has 2 Noble Prices.   In the prime of his life, the biggest question in his field is what is the structure of DNA.  He clearly thought about, and his proposed structure is wrong.

 

If you read this thread and don't think people like techboy and myself have thought about a belief in God, something is clearly wrong with you.  Now, your argument is clearly that our thought processes are "corrupted" based on the way we were raised and are desire to be part of a group.  I'd argue it appears that your thought processes are biased based on your experience as part of a cult.   Part of that is you avoid the hard questions.

 

2.  Hell is a tricky thing for Christians because we don't really know what it is. The Bible suggest different things at different places.  What parts of it are meant as allegorical and what parts are meant to actually deliver truths are not clear.  Some Christian scholars think Hell is the absence of God (Now, with the absence of God, you have the absence of true love (though  people would still have physical and emotional needs, which might create some tight relationships).  From your way of thinking, that shouldn't be too bad, right?  The idea of a Hell being a place of eternal fire and punishment doesn't appear to be accurate based on the Bible.  There are parts of the BIble that make it seem like people are punished by fire, and then pass through to another state (non-existence?)

 

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-does-bible-say-about-hell

 

3.  Again, you ignored my questions.  You ignored the heart of techbody's post, and then when he pointed that out to you, you ignored it again.

 

So I'll ask again, do you think that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today?  Why?  Again, this question has nothing to do with science, but is about belief and truth.

[abdcskins]

I love God, but I don't believe in him.

[techboy]

12 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Uh huh. I’ve ranked every poster in this board in terms of their passion for knowledge. Turns out you’re actually last.

 

You really need to stop, because:

 

1. You're being mean. Not cool. Now, I get it. You think you're doing him a favor by bullying him into social compliance, but here's the thing.

 

It's mean, and perhaps more importantly (though not to me, I think not being mean is enough)...

 

2. It doesn't work. 

 

Exhibit A: You've tried being a jerk to him for weeks now, and the target behavior hasn't stopped. If anything, it's gotten more pronounced.

 

If you're not familiar with it, I'd suggest you look into the rebound effect. Here's a short video to get you started:

 

 

So, you think you're being clever and smacking him around, but his brain is telling him "He's just a sheep lashing out. This proves I'm right! They're out to get me!"

 

Summary: What you're doing is mean and stupid, even counterproductive, not least because you're giving him an easy excuse to avoid PeterMP and my questions.

 

6 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

My last 2 posts just now are the most logical thing said in here. You are still using faith and belief whether it's about God or your view of logic. 

 

I'd ignore him, if I were you. He's just trying to shame you into silence.

 

Since you mentioned logic, let's go with that.

 

How do you know your logic works?

Edited April 9, 2018 by techboy

[Riggo-toni]

So, here's a serious question for those possessing a stronger scientific background than I -

Doesn't atheism have to account for abiogenesis - that the first living organism(s) must have come from lifelessness, which I believe violates the "first law" of biology...thus even an atheist has to believe in something that goes against what is a well-observed and established scientific principle. I am a history geek and not well-versed in science, so perhaps I am way off on this.

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

So, here's a serious question for those possessing a stronger scientific background than I -

Doesn't atheism have to account for abiogenesis - that the first living organism(s) must have come from lifelessness, which I believe violates the "first law" of biology...thus even an atheist has to believe in something that goes against what is a well-observed and established scientific principle. I am a history geek and not well-versed in science, so perhaps I am way off on this.

 

Yes, but I would warn about considering biological "laws" similar to physic laws (and even they don't have to be universal truths).  The "first law" of biology dealt with fully formed organisms rising from non-living material.  e.g. Flies coming from dead meat.

 

Nobody thinks that's what describes how life began.  The first "living organism" could have been as simple as a molecule that somehow resulted in the production of more of itself.  It wouldn't have even had to be very good at it because it would have had no competition.  A polymer that can bind to the monomers that make it up might cause those monomers to react more quickly forming another copy of the polymer.

 

Imagine a tidal pool.  In the ocean, the conditions (temperature, concentrations, etc) keep the formation of the polymer unfavorable so it doesn't happen much.  The water enters the tidal pool, flushing in lots of the monomers.  The tide changes, but some of the water (and monomer) are left behind.  The sun comes out and starts to warms the water, causes some to evaporate, and the conditions change.  Formation of the polymer is now favorable and so there is random synthesis of the polymers.  If one of those polymers at some point in time binds to the monomers that make it up, then it can actually speed up its own synthesis.  You have a self-replicating system and natural selection will take over.

 

(I've used a tidal pool here, but any interface where you'd have changes of conditions works (e.g. deep sea vents, things from under the Earth coming into the cold ocean, ice/water interfaces, etc.)

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251-300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator/

 

There is also the possibility that it didn't even happen on Earth.  One issue we are seeing is biologist are pushing back the time that life appears to have first occurred on Earth and you run into a small time before the Earth cooled.

Edited April 9, 2018 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, techboy said:

You really need to stop, because:

 

1. You're being mean. Not cool.

Well I’m not going out of my way to be nice to the guy who said the Parkland survivors are liars and just told us all for the 1000th time that none of us think for ourselves.

 

But I’ll back off and let you handle it. Godspeed ?

Edited April 9, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[techboy]

8 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Lol you've ranked people based on your belief in the propaganda  fed to you, that you believe.

 

So, just to be clear, @Sacks 'n' Stuffhas bowed out of this conversation, at least until the next time you write something deliberately provocative and/or offensive.

 

So, if you wouldn't mind, please respond to one of the last couple of questions PeterMP or I asked you, so we can explore this further. I'd appreciate it if you actually attempted to answer the question instead of calling us blind sheep that can't think for ourselves and use logic, though. 

 

If you need me to repeat the question, I can.

 

Thanks.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

At the moment, I believe in Shohei Otani.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Well I’m not going out of my way to be nice to the guy

To clarify no one is asking you to. 

 

Not being rude does not equal being nice, there's a happy medium called "being firm" that if someone takes as being rude, they are likely sensitive to begin with and not your problem, not on a message board.  I get that guy has said somethings that anyone not being rude to him comes across as being nice, but that's what this guy wants, don't give it to him.

 

Good luck, hope this doesn't take over thread again, but that's up to yall now.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

So, here's a serious question for those possessing a stronger scientific background than I -

Doesn't atheism have to account for abiogenesis - that the first living organism(s) must have come from lifelessness, which I believe violates the "first law" of biology...thus even an atheist has to believe in something that goes against what is a well-observed and established scientific principle. I am a history geek and not well-versed in science, so perhaps I am way off on this.

So in response the the "where did life begin" question, I usually answer with "I dont know.  Where did God begin?"

[Zguy28]

22 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So in response the the "where did life begin" question, I usually answer with "I dont know.  Where did God begin?"

He didn't. Time is part of the natural realm aka creation. God is not.

[TheGreatBuzz]

26 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

He didn't. Time is part of the natural realm aka creation. God is not.

I get that is your belief and please don't take this as me knocking it.  I try to be extremely respectful of others beliefs.  That said, I don't feel like that is a real answer.  Time exists.  To say God has just always been there seems to be another way of saying "I don't know but can't admit it".  If God created everything, what created God?  If God has just always been there, why can't the same be said for life?  The honest answer is we just don't know.  Sure there are some theories but in the end they are just guesses from smarter people.  It just comes down to what you believe (or don't believe) and none of us can KNOW that we are right.  I truly believe that there is no God.  But I also accept that fact that there is a chance that when I die, I may show up at the Pearly Gates with St. Peter saying "you choose poorly".  If that were to happen I like to think I would still be okay because I have lived a reasonably moral life and at least stuck to my beliefs rather than paying lip service to some deity all the while stealing, cheating on my spouse, or touching little boys.

[PeterMP]

38 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I get that is your belief and please don't take this as me knocking it.  I try to be extremely respectful of others beliefs.  That said, I don't feel like that is a real answer.  Time exists.  To say God has just always been there seems to be another way of saying "I don't know but can't admit it".  If God created everything, what created God?  If God has just always been there, why can't the same be said for life?  The honest answer is we just don't know.  Sure there are some theories but in the end they are just guesses from smarter people.  It just comes down to what you believe (or don't believe) and none of us can KNOW that we are right.  I truly believe that there is no God.  But I also accept that fact that there is a chance that when I die, I may show up at the Pearly Gates with St. Peter saying "you choose poorly".  If that were to happen I like to think I would still be okay because I have lived a reasonably moral life and at least stuck to my beliefs rather than paying lip service to some deity all the while stealing, cheating on my spouse, or touching little boys.

 

Fundamentally, our best current idea of how our universe started isn't compatible with the things living.  There is no known life or even idea of life that could live in a singularity or survive a process like the big bang.

 

Given the universe has a start, it is hard to imagine life (in this universe) pre-existed before this universe.

 

(Now, there is an idea of a multi-verse or different dimensions.  If that is the case and things can travel through them that changes things, but a lot of our knowledge is based on our universe (at least) appearing to be a closed system.  Flow of things between our universe and other things (especially through processes life could survive (and so relatively "mild" conditoins) would be a game changer.) 

 

Even as a theist, the best answer for non-theist with respect to life is that abiogenesis happened at least once, especially as the studies done to disprove abiogenesis weren't really designed to rule out all abiogenesis, but specific examples of it e.g. flies from dead meat.

 

The fundamental problem here though (that's been addressed some) is why do you put the odds at a level that you say you don't believe in God?  Are you saying that you think the chance that God exist is less than 50%?  Why that number or that place to draw the line?

 

Why aren't the odds that God exist 60%?  And if they were, would you then say you believe in him?

Edited April 9, 2018 by PeterMP

[Fresh8686]

This has been a really cool thread to read. I'm glad Renegade7 started it.

From the perspective of working with tension, stress, pressure, and van der waals forces as they express internally, there are some interesting things to consider when it comes to the human desire for proof, especially absolute proof or absolute certainty.

In my experience it is actually a human flaw or an inability to deal with the mental tension of uncertainty, especially as it relates to deeply internalized beliefs that influence our experience of internal consistency on a fundamental level. Absolutes are comforting, but overly simplistic and come from a closed circuit state of conceptualization, rather than a an open and live state with building levels of capacitance. 

An absolute is a static conceptualization (in near all cases), but since the universe has dynamic characteristics, it will not allow for a state to exist that is so absolute, that it cannot be changed, and therefore have no potentiality (or maybe it is accurate to say, even that state has the potential to exist as a peak state, but the probability is so low, because the energy required to restrain reality into a singular state would dissipate over time, creating a slide back into higher probability states of dynamism).

There are always degrees of change, even if not immediately available and that's why absolute proof or absolute certainty exists with only the lowest of probabilities and why that's also a good thing. A degree of fluidity and a degree of solidity is nearly always potentially available, both directions that can express, commingle, and superimpose to create paths for both the simplification and complication of different shapes of life. 

Also, on a somewhat related note, how would people feel about a thread recounting spiritual experiences? We've heard what people believe, but what have people personally experienced and how has it informed their view of reality?
 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Have we decided who the one true God is yet?

[PeterMP]

Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Have we decided who the one true God is yet?

 

No, but you're in the lead.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Fundamentally, our best current idea of how our universe started isn't compatible with the things living.  There is no known life or even idea of life that could live in a singularity or survive a process like the big bang.

 

Given the universe has a start, it is hard to imagine life (in this universe) pre-existed before this universe.

 

(Now, there is an idea of a multi-verse or different dimensions.  If that is the case and things can travel through them that changes things, but a lot of our knowledge is based on our universe (at least) appearing to be a closed system.  Flow of things between our universe and other things (especially through processes life could survive (and so relatively "mild" conditoins) would be a game changer.) 

 

Even as a theist, the best answer for non-theist with respect to life is that abiogenesis happened at least once, especially as the studies done to disprove abiogenesis weren't really designed to rule out all abiogenesis, but specific examples of it e.g. flies from dead meat.

 

The fundamental problem here though (that's been addressed some) is why do you put the odds at a level that you say you don't believe in God?  Are you saying that you think the chance that God exist is less than 50%?  Why that number or that place to draw the line?

 

Why aren't the odds that God exist 60%?  And if they were, would you then say you believe in him?

As for the bolded part, as you state it is just an idea.  We don't really KNOW.  I mentally have an issue with the idea that life had to have a beginning but God doesn't have to have a beginning.  "God has always been there because..........God" just doesn't seem like a well thought out position to me.

 

As for the rest, if I had to put a number on it I would say I believe there is a 0.5% chance that God exists.  I really believe down to my core that He does not exist.  I also accept there is a chance I could be wrong.  It has happened once before after all.  I think Tom Hanks said it best "Faith is a gift I have yet to receive."  Now if you want to know why I feel that way, I can do my best to explain it.

[Riggo-toni]

1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Have we decided who the one true God is yet?

Well, if it's the God of Abraham, don't call him Jehovah. That name didn't appear until the middle ages. There is no J sound in Hebrew. The tetragrammaton for the Hebrew god is YHWH.  Translators looking at the masoretic texts the found in synagogues used the diacritic marking for the vowels in the word Adonai (Lord - what Rabbis would say in sermons to avoid saying the name of God) and placed them between the consonants of YHWH, forming the word Yahowah, or Yahovah (different Hebrew dialects say v or w). The Y sound in German is spelled with a J, so when the name got transliterated into other languages, the spelling stuck (the first Bibles printed were in the German vernacular).

 

[dfitzo53]

 

It had to be done.

[PeterMP]

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

As for the bolded part, as you state it is just an idea.  We don't really KNOW.  I mentally have an issue with the idea that life had to have a beginning but God doesn't have to have a beginning.  "God has always been there because..........God" just doesn't seem like a well thought out position to me.

 

As for the rest, if I had to put a number on it I would say I believe there is a 0.5% chance that God exists.  I really believe down to my core that He does not exist.  I also accept there is a chance I could be wrong.  It has happened once before after all.  I think Tom Hanks said it best "Faith is a gift I have yet to receive."  Now if you want to know why I feel that way, I can do my best to explain it.

 

Well, it isn't just an idea.  It is an idea that is backed by lots of evidence.  This is where you have to have a coherent set of beliefs.  To reject all of the evidence we have on the limits of living things to stay alive/survive and all of the evidence to support the big bang just so you can avoid believing in God results in a set of beliefs that really make no sense.  Life almost certainly had to have a beginning.  All of the evidence we have about the universe suggest that it started from a very small space and then went through a massive change quickly to start expanding and all the evidence we have about the ability of living organisms to survive is they would not survive those sorts of processes.

 

It is one thing to say that the big bang might have not happened.  It is another thing to make that a core belief to the point that it allows you to reject the existence of God at 0.5% because you can now say that life has been forever and don't need an explanation for the origin of life.  Doing the later puts you at the same level as the 6 day creationist and the Earth is about 6, 000 years old group.

 

In terms of God always being, something had to be first or forever.  Whatever it is, you have the same issue.  That really isn't evidence that God doesn't exist.  Even if it was just mater (from which life had to evolve it had to be first.)  (I will point out that science today tells us you can have something from nothing.   All of the mater from our universe could be a statistical blip where it should have been cancelled out by an equivalent amount of antimater, but something happened to the antimater before it could cancel out the mater. And where is the antimater/what happened to it is one of the biggest things in elementary physics right now.  Though that just moves the question to why/how these blips of the creation of equal amounts of mater and antimater are possible.  You have to have "laws of physics" for that to happen so those laws have to become your first thing.  Something has to be first.)

 

The argument a non-theist should make (based on science) is laws of physics -> matter -> universe (big bang)  -> life.

 

Though as I said, this just moves the argument back to where did the laws of physics come from that allowed the creation of mater (with an equal amount of anti-mater).

 

If you wish to explain why, you are welcome to.

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP

[Kosher Ham]

On 4/7/2018 at 9:04 PM, PeterMP said:

 

Do you believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today?

 

 

Goofy way to even debate that part. 

 

On 4/7/2018 at 11:51 PM, thinwhiteduke said:

Beliefs are useless.   

 

Goofy way to debate his point on beliefs. 

 

----

 

Both of you could easily be wrong. Science is the best way to determine these type of debates. Science...certainly not books written by others without the God/ whatever you want to call it ...

 

I have stated that I am Agnostic. To me if God exists... He falls short and is certainly not the omnipedent person that many believe in. 

[PeterMP]

30 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

Both of you could easily be wrong. Science is the best way to determine these type of debates. Science.

 

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of science.  Science does not say that you can predict the future without assuming there are things that can't change.

 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

 

Science is only predictive in the case that true and universal natural laws exist, which is then an assumption of science.  There are fundamental questions that cannot be answered with science.

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP