Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 18, 2006, 12:15:23 PM there are planes of existences that science cannot and never will be able to "proof".In other words, here's an example of how I think theists mentally handicap themselves: It's perfectly OK for scientests to wonder, "What triggered the Big Bang?" But it's not OK for theists to ask, "What triggered God to want to trigger the Big Bang?"See what I'm getting at? Am I mistaken?Regards,quadz
there are planes of existences that science cannot and never will be able to "proof".
Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 18, 2006, 12:15:23 PMQuote from: DaHanG on December 17, 2006, 10:58:55 PMthis is the religion thread, i am not talking about picking and choosing in general (all humans do that). belief in life before conception is something a non-religious person would likely never accept because there's no evidence of such a thing. it is 100% baseless. it is likely, however, that a religious person may believe this while acknowledging there is no evidence, and it pretty much does not make sense in reality. this is the difference, because reality/reason/logic restricts one thinker, and nothing restricts the other.The question I asked was based on the statements (enclosed below so no one has to comb the thread to find them) you made during the thread. It appears to me to are specifically refering to me (as a religous person) picking and choosing what I wanted. The question I then asked you was how was this diffrent than anyone else (as a non-religious person) picking and choosing what they wanted. You still haven't answered the question, just tried to redirect the conversation. picking and choosing is indeed picking and choosing. the difference on this subject, however, is the method of doing so. if someone concludes that christ literally does not have a biological father because of a sacred text, that is different from reaching conclusions based on evidence. sure, in the eyes of the beholder he/she may be 100% convinced muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, but it does not make it in the slightest bit probable (we cannot disprove this either). a skeptic may ask why nobody before/after muhammad flew to heaven, but a believer will say it's in the koran so there is no reason to question it's validity.Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 18, 2006, 12:15:23 PMAs for reality/reason/logic restricting one thinker and nothing restricting the other - that's bull* Whether it makes sense to a particular persons worldview or "reality" has nothing to do with being able to think and consider concepts. Answer the question or don't. I'm not going to argue with you about your limited ability to conceptulize there are planes of existences that science cannot and never will be able to "proof". I still say the more man learns, the more the smarter of man knows we don't know anything yet.QDyou're right, a sacred text usually limits the religious thinker. there is no way around this if one literally believes their book is the word of god (i'm speaking of religious in the sense of christian/jewish/muslim/etc., not the einsteinian religion). why do you think there is such thing as creation science? people 'know' they are right so they will do whatever they can to prove it. imagine that forensic archaeologists unearthed DNA evidence showing jesus indeed lacked a biological father. it's not likely that christians would say "who cares? science means nothing in regard to theoligical questions." they would certainly celebrate this finding. this, in a sense, is my point. a religious person (believing god wrote their sacred text) does not acknowledge any evidence against their case. if they measured the evidence on both sides in an unbiased manner, we can rightfully assume a significant chunk of believers in the sacred text would dwindle. but no, they simply 'know' they're right, or simply want to believe because they get a warm fuzzy feeling in doing so. a non-religious person is obligated to truthfully investigate the matter at hand and make a fair assessment based on the evidence/lack of presented.this is not supposed to imply theism vs atheism, but perhaps christianity vs non belief.
Quote from: DaHanG on December 17, 2006, 10:58:55 PMthis is the religion thread, i am not talking about picking and choosing in general (all humans do that). belief in life before conception is something a non-religious person would likely never accept because there's no evidence of such a thing. it is 100% baseless. it is likely, however, that a religious person may believe this while acknowledging there is no evidence, and it pretty much does not make sense in reality. this is the difference, because reality/reason/logic restricts one thinker, and nothing restricts the other.The question I asked was based on the statements (enclosed below so no one has to comb the thread to find them) you made during the thread. It appears to me to are specifically refering to me (as a religous person) picking and choosing what I wanted. The question I then asked you was how was this diffrent than anyone else (as a non-religious person) picking and choosing what they wanted. You still haven't answered the question, just tried to redirect the conversation.
this is the religion thread, i am not talking about picking and choosing in general (all humans do that). belief in life before conception is something a non-religious person would likely never accept because there's no evidence of such a thing. it is 100% baseless. it is likely, however, that a religious person may believe this while acknowledging there is no evidence, and it pretty much does not make sense in reality. this is the difference, because reality/reason/logic restricts one thinker, and nothing restricts the other.
As for reality/reason/logic restricting one thinker and nothing restricting the other - that's bull* Whether it makes sense to a particular persons worldview or "reality" has nothing to do with being able to think and consider concepts. Answer the question or don't. I'm not going to argue with you about your limited ability to conceptulize there are planes of existences that science cannot and never will be able to "proof". I still say the more man learns, the more the smarter of man knows we don't know anything yet.QD
Thank you. While I don't believe a belief in religious text necessarily limits a religious thinker, I now better understand you're viewpoint. Oh, and FYI - the bible never makes the claim God wrote it. That claim falls into the falable realm of man (who like me can't spell worth a darn)
I had thought this thread perhaps might might be one where ideas and concepts could be presented, examined, talked about and left up to the reader to decide if the information provided meant anything to the reader (and there has been some comments like this)
"And our relatively complex universe could have arisen out of the entity that is the simplest and most mindless of all
why is it more simple for something to come from nothing, maybe it's even impossible. maybe it is even more complicated than a god who made the universe
http://www.videosift.com/video/Jesus-Camp-Bush-WorshipPardon me while I hammer planks over my windows and doors....