Belief v. Non-Belief

[Grizalltheway]

And bike riding, vegetarian, Democrats will have the moral high ground.

Gotta huge population of these douchebags in STL. Especially the ones wearing logos as if they are representing sponsors in some big event.



Edit for 89Hen: Don't do it. I know you want to post that picture. Please, no.

How is that any different from you wearing noDU gear like you play sports for them?

[houndawg]

I'm certainly no religious scholar, nor an expert on the bible, but here are a few random thoughts I have about religion and belief:

* People, unlike most animals, have an understanding of death and a fear of it. Having beliefs in something that could be an extension of our lives in some form gives us comfort when facing our eventual death.

* I believe the Bible to be a series of stories based somewhat in fact but told over and over so embellishments and changes were made to the stories. It's not what we would call a true historical document, but there are certainly some documented truths verified by archeology and science.

* I think there was a man named Jesus who was remarkably charismatic and likely had a profound impact on many people with which he came into contact. To reiterate my point above, I believe that his deeds were likely broadened over time to make him a prophet. The fact that he is mentioned in similar terms historically in the Koran and Bible are evidence to me that he did in fact exist and heavily influenced the people he met.

* Whether you believe in burning bushes that talk, giants that were killed by a kid with a slingshot, or 40 day worldwide floods is your business. What I take from the bible are the commandments and golden rule, which are really not bad suggestions for a structured society to follow and avoid complete chaos.

* The parables and stories are metaphorical, and very open to interpretation. I've often said that if you put 50 clergy in a room and asked them to dissect a section of scripture you'd get 50 different answers.

* If you can get away from taking the bible and scripture in general as anything other than completely cast in stone and treat it as a living document that changes with the times, there are a lot of tenets there which are beneficial when not taken to the furthest extent of being literal, i.e. atheism and fundamentalists.

Given all this, I'm not sure exactly where it places me on the belief/non-belief spectrum. The logical side of me says that much of the bible is unlikely, but to completely abandon any faith doesn't seem correct either. I'd love to see some physical evidence or something that would satisfy my need to have this proven, but I think that's unlikely.

Fascinating book by a biblical scholar about the role of scribes in the bible called "Misquoting Jesus"

[JoltinJoe]

I'm flattered!

So apparently I'm now an Atheist
but not just any old Atheist - I'm a "New Atheist"

I chuckled at that too.

Dude, you are not even agnostic. You are a believer.

[JoltinJoe]

The problem with many neuroscientists, like most scientists today, is that they are under-educated, except in their field.

So they fall into the trap of defining all truth through the limited prism of their extensive knowledge in a single field. That's why guys like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow can write a book saying physics explains all -- and then Mlodinow gets schooled by Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit on national TV to the point that he Mlodinow agrees that the premise of their book is just an idea.

Trust me, watching these neuroscientists strain to explain why it is reasonable that man should ignore the abstract reasoning of their "big, powerful brains" -- how it is rational that we should ignore higher reasoning of our higher reasoning brains? -- is priceless. They get to the point that Mlodinow gets in the exchange starting at 5:30 of this clip -- after getting dressed down by Spitzer, Mlodinow moves from the claim that there is no God, to saying, "All we are saying is there is no proof of God."

That's all you're saying. You don't need to be physics instructor at CalTech to say something like that. Even a General Studies major from UNI can say that.

https://youtu.be/tIttENo2eOM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Joe, I and my UNI degree already destroyed you here a while back. Your belief v nonbelief posts are really moot here. Practically everyone here believes, me included. The difference between you and the rationalists is you believe in an absurd myth surrounding god - the catholic church. You're deluded and arrogant and fundamentalist in this belief.

God is much greater than the benchwarmer who you believe in.

Yeah, scientists are undereducated - actually everyone is undereducated except for you. We get this is your goto response when you're knee deep in it. Yawn.

So, can we move on and accept we're all believers, some more reasonable than others?

Yes, you are a believer, but you only have come around to that position as a result of our 10-plus years of discussions on the FCS boards.

You use to be a disciple of Kurtz -- a so-called atheist and the father of "secular humanism." I always thought that position was a stepping stone for you -- your posts were ripe with inferences that you didn't really see the positions of atheism and secular humanism as intellectually consistent (they are not).

If you are really a full-blown atheist, then "man up," like the existentialists did. I don't agree with the existentialists on the question of God, but at least they are intellectually consistent when they denied the existence of God -- and thus concluded that are our morals are an illusion and our existences meaningless and absurd.

But, like Kurtz, you could never accept the logical extension of atheism: our existences were without purpose and were absurd. I could see it. You HAD to have a moral code that offers meaning and purpose to our existence.

So, now that you accept the existence of some God who is "greater than the benchwarmer" I "imagine -- I now see the inference that you accept this great being is a personal God who is the author of our moral code (not secular humanism).

I'm sure you would still call yourself a "secular humanist," but based on what you've said, that label fits you no better than "atheist." A secular humanist believes that our moral code is man-made -- and someone who believes in a greater God than the benchwarmer I imagine cannot logically believe anything other than the our morality comes from that great being.

I'll put aside, at this time, my belief that you don't really understand what I believe. I will say that I have never claimed to be "over-educated" -- but I do try to keep informed on matters of science, philosophy and faith. I don't want to be that dull lawyer who can't remember why he even went to college.

You see, many of our best scientists have been trained so extensively in their chosen specialties, that they cannot understand valid points of view and legitimate points made from outside their disciplines.

In that video above, the reason why Mlodinow gets taken down almost effortlessly by Spitzer has nothing to do with Mlodinow's intellect. No doubt, Mlodinow is brilliant. But even the most brilliant mind needs to be well rounded and conversant in disciplines other than their own.

In any event, welcome to the realm of belief.

In another 10 years, I'll have you enrolling in the seminary.

[89Hen]

Practically everyone here believes, me included. The difference between you and the rationalists is you believe in an absurd myth surrounding god - the catholic church. You're deluded and arrogant and fundamentalist in this belief.

Let that one sink in D.

[CAA Flagship]

Gotta huge population of these douchebags in STL. Especially the ones wearing logos as if they are representing sponsors in some big event.



Edit for 89Hen: Don't do it. I know you want to post that picture. Please, no.

How is that any different from you wearing noDU gear like you play sports for them?

What? It's not even close and I know you know that.

[Chizzang]

But, like Kurtz, you could never accept the logical extension of atheism: our existences were without purpose and were absurd. I could see it. You HAD to have a moral code that offers meaning and purpose to our existence.

So, now that you accept the existence of some God who is "greater than the benchwarmer" I "imagine -- I now see the inference that you accept this great being is a personal God who is the author of our moral code (not secular humanism).

I'm sure you would still call yourself a "secular humanist," but based on what you've said, that label fits you no better than "atheist." A secular humanist believes that our moral code is man-made -- and someone who believes in a greater God than the benchwarmer I imagine cannot logically believe anything other than the our morality comes from that great being.

I'll put aside, at this time, my belief that you don't really understand what I believe. I will say that I have never claimed to be "over-educated" -- but I do try to keep informed on matters of science, philosophy and faith. I don't want to be that dull lawyer who can't remember why he even went to college.

You see, many of our best scientists have been trained so extensively in their chosen specialties, that they cannot understand valid points of view and legitimate points made from outside their disciplines.

In that video above, the reason why Mlodinow gets taken down almost effortlessly by Spitzer has nothing to do with Mlodinow's intellect. No doubt, Mlodinow is brilliant. But even the most brilliant mind needs to be well rounded and conversant in disciplines other than their own.

In any event, welcome to the realm of belief.

In another 10 years, I'll have you enrolling in the seminary.

Meh... ^
Humanity will never truly be able to move forward as long as we cling to Religious group think
Why everybody has to believe the same thing is baffling when taken at face value

when broken down and discussed for what it is - it collapses
Everybody believing ONE THING:
Centralizes power
Establishes a control mechanism
Creates a pack mentality
Defines the meaning of fear
Separates us from our one true connection

In the end it:
Exposes man's fear of truly being free and thinking free
and trains him to be part of a pack
Ultimately pulling people farther away from god

A group of people are far more capable of mass atrocities and general stupidity than "A man"

For all the good that Big Religion "could do" it ultimately stumbles and becomes about control
and about Ideology and Group Mentality

Example: The Pope

I love this Pope - he is awesome as Popes go
But conceptually - standing on it s own - the Idea of a Pope is possibly the dumbest thing humans do
and proves just how far away we are from actual growth and enlightenment



Be Free - truly FREE

[CID1990]

But, like Kurtz, you could never accept the logical extension of atheism: our existences were without purpose and were absurd. I could see it. You HAD to have a moral code that offers meaning and purpose to our existence.

So, now that you accept the existence of some God who is "greater than the benchwarmer" I "imagine -- I now see the inference that you accept this great being is a personal God who is the author of our moral code (not secular humanism).

I'm sure you would still call yourself a "secular humanist," but based on what you've said, that label fits you no better than "atheist." A secular humanist believes that our moral code is man-made -- and someone who believes in a greater God than the benchwarmer I imagine cannot logically believe anything other than the our morality comes from that great being.

I'll put aside, at this time, my belief that you don't really understand what I believe. I will say that I have never claimed to be "over-educated" -- but I do try to keep informed on matters of science, philosophy and faith. I don't want to be that dull lawyer who can't remember why he even went to college.

You see, many of our best scientists have been trained so extensively in their chosen specialties, that they cannot understand valid points of view and legitimate points made from outside their disciplines.

In that video above, the reason why Mlodinow gets taken down almost effortlessly by Spitzer has nothing to do with Mlodinow's intellect. No doubt, Mlodinow is brilliant. But even the most brilliant mind needs to be well rounded and conversant in disciplines other than their own.

In any event, welcome to the realm of belief.

In another 10 years, I'll have you enrolling in the seminary.

Meh... ^
Humanity will never truly be able to move forward as long as we cling to Religious group think
Why everybody has to believe the same thing is baffling when taken at face value

when broken down and discussed for what it is - it collapses
Everybody believing ONE THING:
Centralizes power
Establishes a control mechanism
Creates a pack mentality
Defines the meaning of fear
Separates us from our one true connection

In the end it:
Exposes man's fear of truly being free and thinking free
and trains him to be part of a pack
Ultimately pulling people farther away from god

A group of people are far more capable of mass atrocities and general stupidity than "A man"

For all the good that Big Religion "could do" it ultimately stumbles and becomes about control
and about Ideology and Group Mentality

Example: The Pope

I love this Pope - he is awesome as Popes go
But conceptually - standing on it s own - the Idea of a Pope is possibly the dumbest thing humans do
and proves just how far away we are from actual growth and enlightenment



Be Free - truly FREE

what the hell are you talking about Cleets

Im as critical of religious dogma as anyone

but saying that we cant move forward as long as we cling to it isn't cognizant of the fact that we've moved forward more in the last 100 years than we had in all of previous human existence

discovered the double helix

went from no flight to walking on the moon in 65 years

unlocked the atom

increased life expectancy by decades

eradicated diseases that had had free reign over us for centuries

--- and that progress is accelerating as we speak

unless youre speaking solely in a sociological sense - your assertion appears to be flawed

[Chizzang]

Meh... ^
Humanity will never truly be able to move forward as long as we cling to Religious group think
Why everybody has to believe the same thing is baffling when taken at face value

when broken down and discussed for what it is - it collapses
Everybody believing ONE THING:
Centralizes power
Establishes a control mechanism
Creates a pack mentality
Defines the meaning of fear
Separates us from our one true connection

In the end it:
Exposes man's fear of truly being free and thinking free
and trains him to be part of a pack
Ultimately pulling people farther away from god

A group of people are far more capable of mass atrocities and general stupidity than "A man"

For all the good that Big Religion "could do" it ultimately stumbles and becomes about control
and about Ideology and Group Mentality

Example: The Pope

I love this Pope - he is awesome as Popes go
But conceptually - standing on it s own - the Idea of a Pope is possibly the dumbest thing humans do
and proves just how far away we are from actual growth and enlightenment



Be Free - truly FREE

what the hell are you talking about Cleets

Im as critical of religious dogma as anyone

but saying that we cant move forward as long as we cling to it isn't cognizant of the fact that we've moved forward more in the last 100 years than we had in all of previous human existence

discovered the double helix

went from no flight to walking on the moon in 65 years

unlocked the atom

increased life expectancy by decades

eradicated diseases that had had free reign over us for centuries

--- and that progress is accelerating as we speak

unless youre speaking solely in a sociological sense - your assertion appears to be flawed

Well WTF do you think I'm talking about this is a sociological debate

Its not like I'm suggesting the Hubble Telescope will stop working and Cancer Research will come to a halt
We're either going to enlighten further or stay "tribal"

[CID1990]

what the hell are you talking about Cleets

Im as critical of religious dogma as anyone

but saying that we cant move forward as long as we cling to it isn't cognizant of the fact that we've moved forward more in the last 100 years than we had in all of previous human existence

discovered the double helix

went from no flight to walking on the moon in 65 years

unlocked the atom

increased life expectancy by decades

eradicated diseases that had had free reign over us for centuries

--- and that progress is accelerating as we speak

unless youre speaking solely in a sociological sense - your assertion appears to be flawed

Well WTF do you think I'm talking about this is a sociological debate

Its not like I'm suggesting the Hubble Telescope will stop working and Cancer Research will come to a halt
We're either going to enlighten further or stay "tribal"

im cool with tribal

homogenous is too boring

and Im still allowed to not like certain aspects or shared traits of different cultures without being pilloried (for now)

[Chizzang]

Well WTF do you think I'm talking about this is a sociological debate

Its not like I'm suggesting the Hubble Telescope will stop working and Cancer Research will come to a halt
We're either going to enlighten further or stay "tribal"

im cool with tribal

homogenous is too boring

and Im still allowed to not like certain aspects or shared traits of different cultures without being pilloried (for now)

Sure...
but tribal has some serious problems
Beheading infidels is about 6 degrees from middle ground in a tribal world

[Grizalltheway]

How is that any different from you wearing noDU gear like you play sports for them?

What? It's not even close and I know you know that.

Yeah. Sure it's not.

[D1B]

Joe, I and my UNI degree already destroyed you here a while back. Your belief v nonbelief posts are really moot here. Practically everyone here believes, me included. The difference between you and the rationalists is you believe in an absurd myth surrounding god - the catholic church. You're deluded and arrogant and fundamentalist in this belief.

God is much greater than the benchwarmer who you believe in.

Yeah, scientists are undereducated - actually everyone is undereducated except for you. We get this is your goto response when you're knee deep in it. Yawn.

So, can we move on and accept we're all believers, some more reasonable than others?

Yes, you are a believer, but you only have come around to that position as a result of our 10-plus years of discussions on the FCS boards.

You use to be a disciple of Kurtz -- a so-called atheist and the father of "secular humanism." I always thought that position was a stepping stone for you -- your posts were ripe with inferences that you didn't really see the positions of atheism and secular humanism as intellectually consistent (they are not).

If you are really a full-blown atheist, then "man up," like the existentialists did. I don't agree with the existentialists on the question of God, but at least they are intellectually consistent when they denied the existence of God -- and thus concluded that are our morals are an illusion and our existences meaningless and absurd.

But, like Kurtz, you could never accept the logical extension of atheism: our existences were without purpose and were absurd. I could see it. You HAD to have a moral code that offers meaning and purpose to our existence.

So, now that you accept the existence of some God who is "greater than the benchwarmer" I "imagine -- I now see the inference that you accept this great being is a personal God who is the author of our moral code (not secular humanism).

I'm sure you would still call yourself a "secular humanist," but based on what you've said, that label fits you no better than "atheist." A secular humanist believes that our moral code is man-made -- and someone who believes in a greater God than the benchwarmer I imagine cannot logically believe anything other than the our morality comes from that great being.

I'll put aside, at this time, my belief that you don't really understand what I believe. I will say that I have never claimed to be "over-educated" -- but I do try to keep informed on matters of science, philosophy and faith. I don't want to be that dull lawyer who can't remember why he even went to college.

You see, many of our best scientists have been trained so extensively in their chosen specialties, that they cannot understand valid points of view and legitimate points made from outside their disciplines.

In that video above, the reason why Mlodinow gets taken down almost effortlessly by Spitzer has nothing to do with Mlodinow's intellect. No doubt, Mlodinow is brilliant. But even the most brilliant mind needs to be well rounded and conversant in disciplines other than their own.

In any event, welcome to the realm of belief.

In another 10 years, I'll have you enrolling in the seminary.

Well nice try. I always intellectually assumed the existence of a higher power. Everyone does.

Again, what's on trial here is your ridiculous belief in a ridiculous God. For ten years I've served as your, Andy and 89Braincells' cult deprogrammer. While I've failed with those two idiots, you on the other hand have shown some progress. I helped you understand your cult leaders are criminals and the bible is a heap of shit. I proudly read your recent posts on the limits of the bible and your conception of God now is categorically anti-catholic.

Welcome to secular humanism, Joe.

[Wedgebuster]