Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers (page 5)

Terry

The question of whether the judaic-christian god exists is an absurd one to me and I don't need to read a lot of books on any topic to reach that conclusion.

I, on the other hand, am a confessed Godaholic. I read everything I can get my hands on. I must be informed to make decisions. I can't let a lot of space and distance pile up between me and the conceptual "god". I'd think if there was a somebody out there in the somewhere of vast immeasurable nothingness he'd have the decency to admit I'm not lazy about my disbelief. I am an honest agnostic and not an indolent one by default.

T.

OldSoul

Daunt,

But I'm open for suggestions, would actually be interesting to live a rational religious lifestyle if there was something besides emotion pulling us towards it.

Odd requirement. I find it very interesting that science has done this to humanity. I believe it is an unintended consequence. Scientific endeavor must, by definition, seek to eliminate passion and emotion from its processes. However, science must also eventually admit that emotion and passion are absolutely essential to human existence as well.

Seriously, can you prove the existence of respect? No more than I can prove the existence of God. There is more to life and reality than logic and the definable. That is easily demonstrated, although it cannot be proved.

If you are looking for something besides a vital part of reality, i.e. emotions, to pull you towards worship, I daresay you will never find it.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Terry

Scientific endeavor must, by definition, seek to eliminate passion and emotion from its processes. However, science must also eventually admit that emotion and passion are absolutely essential to human existence as well.

Emotion is our physical reaction to our valuation of something or someone. It would be highly illogical to form a valuation of an unexplored and ill-defined something or someone.

Science must postpone the valuation until the experiment is done and the results understood.

Surely you see this is fair, honest and rational.

Passion is what we feel when seized by the full impact of the strongest of our values. Scientists can be passionate about their work as they value knowledge and the benefits of discovery.

It is unnecessary to link emotion with passion in this way and claim science eliminates it. This hasn't been clearly thought out by you, has it?

T.

OldSoul

Actually, Terry, it has been clearly thought out by me. Passion is an emotion. Do you disagree? Linking the two is quite simple, as one is an example of the other.

It would be highly illogical to form a valuation of an unexplored and ill-defined something or someone.

I quite agree. Highly illogical. And you have struck on exactly that which prevents science from exploring emotion logically. Emotions are ill-defined, largely unexplored, and they are highly illogical. Not only that, they defy every standard imposed by the scientific method and from a scientific standpoint will remain ill-defined and largely unexplored. They cannot be defined according to rules that prevent their examination. Emotions are real, however ill-defined or unexplored they may be, and we believe in them despite the utter lack of scientific substantiation for their existence. In thousands of ways every day your actions demonstrate your belief in emotions heedless of a lack of scientific support for your belief. I invite you to toss toward me as much weight to the contrary as you can muster. Have you thought it out well? Have I stated incorrectly that "scientific endeavor must...seek to eliminate passion and emotion from its processes?" Is that not what the Scientific Method is designed to do? A scientist, according to the rules of science, may be passionate about his or her work, but the objective is to remove passion from his or her work. Otherwise, the results will be obtained illogically. Thus, they miss an entire spectrum of reality by striving to minimize and/or eliminate its influence. Respectfully,
OldSoul

Qcmbr

In any great battle it is incumbent upon the good general to find the best spot to fight upon, somewhere that favours his/her army. When it comes to these scientific arguements against God it seems that the following happens:

1/ Scientific aethiest/agnostic general finds high dry ground overlooking boggy marshland. (Chooses some excellent arguments that are known to cause problems for god botherers)
2/ Brings forward a 'champion' arguement to drag the suicidal religious fanatics to yet another bloodbath. (Normally some high quality and thought provoking article aimed squarly at pushing a materialistic universe)
3/ When the poor unfortunates venture out they are taunted to dissuade any real attempt at negotiation and understanding, after all its meant to be a cull. (Constant bare bottoms to the bible bashers and united aethiest high fives all round)
4/ All out slaughter of the individuals beginning and not ending with their characters, belief system and debating skills.

And every time I enter one of these dicussions where do I find myself ? Piddling about up to my knees looking for answers in a peat bog without a snorkel as Alan, Tetrapod, Terry etc.. gleefully lob in their best shots. There is maybe a sort of sick glory and fascination in the huddle of believers turning up each time for a fair trouncing but that maybe is the problem..

The anti-god/religion grand coalition is united in its desire to hit religion hard. The religious are a disunited church that spends half its time disagreeing vehemently with itself anyway and would probably gladly join in on the dry ground if only one specific religion was being pummelled. We believers are as united as soggy biscuits.

The strong ground of the Darwin Alliance is asking questions that believers cannot answer, dressed up enticingly as though they should be able to:

1/ Where does God come from?
2/ Why would God create dinosaurs?
3/ Who made God?
4/ Why is the Bible so obviously unscientific?
5/ Why doesn't God prove himself rather than swanning off into the cosmos leaving confusion?

..creating conflict when non is actually warranted

6/ If evolution then God isn't.
7/ In no miracle no God.
8/ If Panda's have funny finger joints no God.

..etc

So - if your still with me well done - its quite a ramble - what is wrong then? - why are religious people still religious when pasted time and time again? AlanF lobs a 'Because you're all idiots' although maybe that was Terry since starting a sentence with 'because' is bad grammar (OK guys I'm just kidding around:) But seriously what is the problem here..?

The war cannot be fought forever on the ground chosen by the Irreligious Concord. Religion doesn't claim its roots in science though it must not be in discord with the truth. If there is a God He/She must think, have intelligence and be able to choose to act in someway (on those criteria not too far from us in a grander way..?) There must be a higher purpose to life if there is a God (if there isn't any God then there isn't any higher purpose - I think that logic holds together..) If there is a higher purpose then all science and logic must be part of that purpose. If there is a higher purpose there must be more than we understand now ergo this intellectual war is fought by us children who do not know what we are fighting for.

Now nowhere in the bible does it say we have to believe because of science nor does it say that dinosaurs didn't live nor does it say in anything but in the most literal reading that the earth isn't fabulously old. Now disbelieving in God because of science is as wrong as believing in God despite science - science was never ever the yardstick of religion. If Jesus died on the Cross and critically was raised again it doesn't make one jot of difference whether permian shales have transitional forms in them or not. Heck it doesn't even matter if evolution is totally correct and God happens to be a being who evolved billions of years before us and is just trying to show us a better way. What's critical is what does pure religion, unencumbered by dogma teach us? Is there any use in teaching charity, hope, love, understanding and forgiveness with teh potential for life beyond this one?

I think the best battle field for believers and non-believers is the one filled with respect , acknowledgment, no bitterness, genuine interest in another viewpoint. I like a good intellectual tussle that leaves me thinking in new ways about our world and my place in it. I won't try and convert you* if you don't call me stupid.

From the baby in the box

Shining One

Hey Daunt,
How are you ever going to separate that which is in your nature? Emotions are very much a integral part of all belief or non-belief. We aren't Vulcans, you know! ;-) God can and should be pursued with passion. Ask Him to show Himself to you as I did. You might be surprised at the outcome. I wouldn't even acknowledge it here. They will kid you and curse you till you 'repent' from your faith.
Rex

Shining One

Hi Terry,
"With God all things are possible"!
Rex

Amazing1914

Hi Alan,

Excellent material and good discussion. Thanks. It is refreshing to read rational and reasonable material.

Jim W.

toreador

Pistoff

This statement was made:

"The anti-god/religion grand coalition is united in its desire to hit religion hard."

That statement is inconsistent; the difference between God and religion is infinite. I can't speak for all, but what I am "anti" is some religionist, such as Shi**ing One here, telling me WHAT God is, and what he wants from me. [I am not anti God; I am certainly anti most religious power.]

That is between God and me, but the world seems quite replete with experts on what God wants.

Shi**ing One, I suspect God does NOT want you on his side. You are snide, sarcastic, and most of all, you can't argue your way out of a bag.

P

Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers

Share this