| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bill M" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 03:10:39 PM |
| Object: |
WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
WHICH IF ANY ARE CORRECT???
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the TRUE one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!
.
|
|
| User: "Russ Rose" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
12 Oct 2006 05:46:32 PM |
|
|
"Will Brittland" <jwbritt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rIudnf4USbi7fLDYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n8idnQ5OaY0xPLDYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"The_Sage" <The_Sage@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hg5ri2dahijbmi41bro4udkbhlm0dn2nu7@4ax.com...
Reply to article by: "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
Date written: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:01:01 -0500
MsgID:<b-CdnQJfOufGzbHYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com>
[snip]
Interesting how many words your "actual definition" and my "BS"
definition have in common.
Watch this:
1) Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.
2) Jupiter is not the largest planet in the solar system.
Wow! Look at how many words they have in common! According to you, that
means something? Note also, that one statement is completely true and the
other is completely false.
The two definitions I was comparing had no contradicting words.
(Copied from above for easier comparison)
Atheism is a belief system the mind employs to make its version of
reality
coherent and orderly while denying the existence of a deity.
- I'm guessing "An Atheist" is one who practices 'atheism'.
There's not much to "practice." It's a NON-belief. Something that is
practiced is something that is believed in. I don't believe in Santa
Claus. That doesn't mean I'm practicing non-SantaClausism.
- I will assume the "One" has a mind and my definition eliminates the
lungs, heart, liver, etc as a possible source of the "disbelieving".
- In order to "disbelieve" one must have beliefs, ostensibly part of some
belief system.
- "denies the existence of" is painfully close to my 'denying the
existence of'
- "God" is one of the members of the deity club.
And all of this is just a post hoc, elaborated argument in order to prove
your point that atheim is just the same as religion so science is no more
valid than blind faith. It's nonsense, just like your two bogus
definitions, concocted purely for the purpose of showing that there is no
difference between religion and science. All so (bottom line), you can
get a foot in the door of public schools and push your religious agenda on
innocent minds. It is a lie and fortunately most people see it as such.
But even if they don't, they would probably be scratching their heads and
asking, "Didn't he just disparage science by saying it was just like his
religion? And so, for this reason we should allow them to bring it into
schools?"
Will B.
So many misconceptions, so little time...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
12 Oct 2006 05:58:10 PM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
"Will Brittland" <jwbritt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rIudnf4USbi7fLDYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n8idnQ5OaY0xPLDYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"The_Sage" <The_Sage@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hg5ri2dahijbmi41bro4udkbhlm0dn2nu7@4ax.com...
Reply to article by: "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
Date written: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:01:01 -0500
MsgID:<b-CdnQJfOufGzbHYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com>
[snip]
Interesting how many words your "actual definition" and my "BS"
definition have in common.
Watch this:
1) Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.
2) Jupiter is not the largest planet in the solar system.
Wow! Look at how many words they have in common! According to you, that
means something? Note also, that one statement is completely true and the
other is completely false.
The two definitions I was comparing had no contradicting words.
(Copied from above for easier comparison)
Atheism is a belief system the mind employs to make its version of
reality
coherent and orderly while denying the existence of a deity.
- I'm guessing "An Atheist" is one who practices 'atheism'.
There's not much to "practice." It's a NON-belief. Something that is
practiced is something that is believed in. I don't believe in Santa
Claus. That doesn't mean I'm practicing non-SantaClausism.
- I will assume the "One" has a mind and my definition eliminates the
lungs, heart, liver, etc as a possible source of the "disbelieving".
- In order to "disbelieve" one must have beliefs, ostensibly part of some
belief system.
- "denies the existence of" is painfully close to my 'denying the
existence of'
- "God" is one of the members of the deity club.
And all of this is just a post hoc, elaborated argument in order to prove
your point that atheim is just the same as religion so science is no more
valid than blind faith. It's nonsense, just like your two bogus
definitions, concocted purely for the purpose of showing that there is no
difference between religion and science. All so (bottom line), you can
get a foot in the door of public schools and push your religious agenda on
innocent minds. It is a lie and fortunately most people see it as such.
But even if they don't, they would probably be scratching their heads and
asking, "Didn't he just disparage science by saying it was just like his
religion? And so, for this reason we should allow them to bring it into
schools?"
Will B.
So many misconceptions, so little time...
Oh go ahead, take the time. We're all waiting with baited breath.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
12 Oct 2006 09:55:43 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
Date written: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:00:14 -0500
MsgID:<n8idnQ5OaY0xPLDYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Atheism is a religion.
Why do you say that? What do you
base that statement on?
I base it on my definition of 'atheism' and 'religion'.
Your definition is not the actual definition...
The actual definition is?
Don't you know how to use the World Wide Web? There must be hundreds of
online dictionaries, and you are unable to find and read just one of them?
The phrase "the actual definition" implies a single authoratative source
(sounds like God). I was wondering who or what that could be.
What the phrase "the actual definition" actually implies is that you are not the
authorative source for making up completely new and never-heard-before meanings
of commonly understood english words like "Atheism". There are hundreds of
authoraties out there and they all basically say the same thing -- which is not
at all like your make believe definition.
An Atheist is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or
gods".
Interesting how many words your "actual definition" and my "BS" definition
have in common.
So you say without a shred of evidence.
(Copied from above for easier comparison)
Atheism is a belief system the mind employs to make its version of reality
coherent and orderly while denying the existence of a deity.
- I'm guessing "An Atheist" is one who practices 'atheism'.
You should stop guessing and start thinking. We could describe an object as as
white or shiny, but does that mean that an object that is white or shiny,
"practices" being white or shiny? Of course not, but that is exactly the "logic"
you are trying to use here. It is impossible to "practice" Atheism, since
Atheism is not an exercise or ritual or way of life. It is simply a description
of what a person is like.
- I will assume the "One" has a mind and my definition eliminates the lungs,
heart, liver, etc as a possible source of the "disbelieving".
That is a weird thing to say...what in the world does this "One" thingy have to
do with anything with the subject under discussion? I mean that is so far out in
left field, it makes no sense whatsoever.
- In order to "disbelieve" one must have beliefs, ostensibly part of some
belief system.
How do you figure that? It certainly isn't based on anything logical.
- "denies the existence of" is painfully close to my 'denying the existence of'
- "God" is one of the members of the deity club.
So what? If you have an authoritative definition of Atheism that matches your
obviously made up one, show us.
But you don't, do you? You just wish it were true. But it isn't.
If anything my "BS" definition is more precise. You probably would have had
better luck challenging my definition of religion.
You are the only one who relies on luck -- I only rely on skill.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ Rose" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
12 Oct 2006 10:25:08 PM |
|
|
"The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:htuti29v85tiiutgfmq3ou8uspi0r6djeu@4ax.com...
Reply to article by: "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
Date written: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:00:14 -0500
MsgID:<n8idnQ5OaY0xPLDYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Atheism is a religion.
Why do you say that? What do you
base that statement on?
I base it on my definition of 'atheism' and 'religion'.
Your definition is not the actual definition...
The actual definition is?
Don't you know how to use the World Wide Web? There must be hundreds of
online dictionaries, and you are unable to find and read just one of
them?
The phrase "the actual definition" implies a single authoratative source
(sounds like God). I was wondering who or what that could be.
What the phrase "the actual definition" actually implies is that you are
not the
authorative source for making up completely new and never-heard-before
meanings
of commonly understood english words like "Atheism". There are hundreds of
authoraties out there and they all basically say the same thing -- which
is not
at all like your make believe definition.
An Atheist is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or
gods".
Interesting how many words your "actual definition" and my "BS" definition
have in common.
So you say without a shred of evidence.
(Copied from above for easier comparison)
Atheism is a belief system the mind employs to make its version of
reality
coherent and orderly while denying the existence of a deity.
- I'm guessing "An Atheist" is one who practices 'atheism'.
You should stop guessing and start thinking. We could describe an object
as as
white or shiny, but does that mean that an object that is white or shiny,
"practices" being white or shiny? Of course not, but that is exactly the
"logic"
you are trying to use here. It is impossible to "practice" Atheism, since
Atheism is not an exercise or ritual or way of life. It is simply a
description
of what a person is like.
So atheism has nothing at all to do with atheists? My mistake...
- I will assume the "One" has a mind and my definition eliminates the
lungs,
heart, liver, etc as a possible source of the "disbelieving".
That is a weird thing to say...what in the world does this "One" thingy
have to
do with anything with the subject under discussion? I mean that is so far
out in
left field, it makes no sense whatsoever.
It is the third word of your "actual definition". How could you not realize
I was doing a word by word comparison?
- In order to "disbelieve" one must have beliefs, ostensibly part of some
belief system.
How do you figure that? It certainly isn't based on anything logical.
OK, that part was weak...
- "denies the existence of" is painfully close to my 'denying the
existence of'
- "God" is one of the members of the deity club.
So what? If you have an authoritative definition of Atheism that matches
your
obviously made up one, show us.
I just did, almost word for word. Were you not paying attention?
But you don't, do you? You just wish it were true. But it isn't.
It matches my view of reality. No wishing involved.
If anything my "BS" definition is more precise. You probably would have
had
better luck challenging my definition of religion.
You are the only one who relies on luck -- I only rely on skill.
I rely on what I consider to be a more accurate view of reality. I'm not
sure what "skill" you are referring to. Is atheism a skill?
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 09:42:32 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
Date written: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:25:08 -0500
MsgID:<3cmdnQuu8ZmMmrLYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Atheism is a religion.
Why do you say that? What do you
base that statement on?
I base it on my definition of 'atheism' and 'religion'.
Your definition is not the actual definition...
<snip>
Atheism is a belief system the mind employs to make its version of reality
coherent and orderly while denying the existence of a deity.
- I'm guessing "An Atheist" is one who practices 'atheism'.
You should stop guessing and start thinking. We could describe an object as as
white or shiny, but does that mean that an object that is white or shiny,
"practices" being white or shiny? Of course not, but that is exactly the "logic"
you are trying to use here. It is impossible to "practice" Atheism, since
Atheism is not an exercise or ritual or way of life. It is simply a description
of what a person is like.
So atheism has nothing at all to do with atheists?
No, for the third time in a row now, Atheists do not practice Atheism. You can't
seem to understand that elementary concept. Try looking up the definition for
"practice". Then look up the definition for "Atheism". The two words are not
compatible with each other anymore than apples "practice" being red.
My mistake...
You make a lot of those.
- I will assume the "One" has a mind and my definition eliminates the lungs,
heart, liver, etc as a possible source of the "disbelieving".
That is a weird thing to say...what in the world does this "One" thingy have to
do with anything with the subject under discussion? I mean that is so far out in
left field, it makes no sense whatsoever.
It is the third word of your "actual definition".
Disbelieving has absolutely nothing to do with "lungs, heart, liver, etc"
How could you not realize I was doing a word by word comparison?
When you tried to compare "One" with "disbelieves". There is no comparison.
Besides...
- In order to "disbelieve" one must have beliefs, ostensibly part of some
belief system.
That right there says it all.
- "denies the existence of" is painfully close to my 'denying the
existence of'
- "God" is one of the members of the deity club.
So what? If you have an authoritative definition of Atheism that matches your
obviously made up one, show us.
I just did, almost word for word. Were you not paying attention?
You did no such thing. You have no *AUTHORITATIVE" definition you can show us
because:
1) You have no idea what "authoritative" means, and
2) You confuse "show us" with "tell us".
HINT: Try an internet link to a dictionary.
But you don't, do you? You just wish it were true. But it isn't.
It matches my view of reality. No wishing involved.
That sums it up right there: It is merely your own private view of reality. Your
view of reality is not anybody else's view because your view is not an objective
observation but a rose-colored fantasy.
If anything my "BS" definition is more precise. You probably would have had
better luck challenging my definition of religion.
You are the only one who relies on luck -- I only rely on skill.
I rely on what I consider to be a more accurate view of reality.
So you say without a shred of evidence.
I'm not sure what "skill" you are referring to.
The ability to use logic and facts.
Is atheism a skill?
Now there is a stupid question. You still can't figure out what a dictionary is
and how to use it?
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
12 Oct 2006 11:26:01 PM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
If anything my "BS" definition is more precise. You probably would have
had
better luck challenging my definition of religion.
You are the only one who relies on luck -- I only rely on skill.
I rely on what I consider to be a more accurate view of reality. I'm not
sure what "skill" you are referring to. Is atheism a skill?
No. Arguing logically and following what others say is the skill he was
referring to, though you seem to rely on 'luck' for gettng these right.
'Luck' is a superstitious belief unrelated to reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ Rose" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 05:41:33 AM |
|
|
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160713561.040559.319430@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
If anything my "BS" definition is more precise. You probably would have
had
better luck challenging my definition of religion.
You are the only one who relies on luck -- I only rely on skill.
I rely on what I consider to be a more accurate view of reality. I'm not
sure what "skill" you are referring to. Is atheism a skill?
No. Arguing logically and following what others say is the skill he was
"Following what others say" is a skill?
Religionists also have that "skill". Fascinating...
referring to, though you seem to rely on 'luck' for gettng these right.
'Luck' is a superstitious belief unrelated to reality.
I do have one serious question for you.
How can you gain and possess existing knowledge that is beyond your ability
to see and personally prove? Will you only know a comet is made of ice if
you land on one yourself, make a snowball, measure the boiling and freezing
points, split it electrolytically and test the components, etc? Don't you
have to trust those who have done the experimentation to some degree?
OK, that was three questions...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 02:42:12 PM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
I do have one serious question for you.
At last, after seemingly weeks you manage a serious question. Or one
you claim to be so.
How can you gain and possess existing knowledge that is beyond your ability
to see and personally prove? Will you only know a comet is made of ice if
you land on one yourself, make a snowball, measure the boiling and freezing
points, split it electrolytically and test the components, etc? Don't you
have to trust those who have done the experimentation to some degree?
BTW it isn't 'ice' like you would get from your freezer.
You appear to think that I need to "know" this. That I need to be able
to see a comet and say "that is made of ice". I don't. If some say that
a particulatr comet is probably ice or blue cheese or some other I may
find that it is interesting as to why they determined that. I may even
be interested in the evidence that led them to say that. But I don't
have to 'believe' it either way. It is not that I don't care, but I
don't have to make up my mind one way or the other. If I need to
relate it to something else I will use the evidence and not someones
assertion.
While you can evaluate your own attitude to evidence and beliefs, you
want to extrapolate your workings to be that of everyone else. Perhaps
there is a 'belief gene' that makes the brain work in particular ways.
I am reminded of the story of three travelling on a train to Scotland.
As they cross the border there is one black sheep on the hill:
The first say: Oh look, all sheep in Scotland are black.
No, says the second, some sheep in Scotland are black.
The third says: At least one is black on at least one side.
You are the first. I am the third. But I doubt that you will ever
understand that because you would say:
Oh look, all people believe things.
When you are grown up you may be able to dimly understand the viewpoint
of the second.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ Rose" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 06:27:00 PM |
|
|
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160768532.288850.209830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
I do have one serious question for you.
At last, after seemingly weeks you manage a serious question. Or one
you claim to be so.
I was too busy trying to explain myself...
How can you gain and possess existing knowledge that is beyond your
ability
to see and personally prove? Will you only know a comet is made of ice if
you land on one yourself, make a snowball, measure the boiling and
freezing
points, split it electrolytically and test the components, etc? Don't you
have to trust those who have done the experimentation to some degree?
BTW it isn't 'ice' like you would get from your freezer.
I would not have made a snowball if it was ice cubes... Actually that was
lifted from Arthur C. Clarke's 2061 where he landed on Halley's comet made a
snowball.)
You appear to think that I need to "know" this. That I need to be able
to see a comet and say "that is made of ice". I don't. If some say that
a particulatr comet is probably ice or blue cheese or some other I may
find that it is interesting as to why they determined that. I may even
be interested in the evidence that led them to say that. But I don't
have to 'believe' it either way. It is not that I don't care, but I
don't have to make up my mind one way or the other. If I need to
relate it to something else I will use the evidence and not someones
assertion.
Evidence collected by someone else?
While you can evaluate your own attitude to evidence and beliefs, you
want to extrapolate your workings to be that of everyone else. Perhaps
there is a 'belief gene' that makes the brain work in particular ways.
You really think humans are that different?
I am reminded of the story of three travelling on a train to Scotland.
As they cross the border there is one black sheep on the hill:
The first say: Oh look, all sheep in Scotland are black.
No, says the second, some sheep in Scotland are black.
The third says: At least one is black on at least one side.
You are the first.
Not true. Being the black sheep of my partly Scottish family, I would smile
and say "She sure looks purdy..."
I am the third.
Actually, I think you would be the fourth, saying "What sheep?"
But I doubt that you will ever
understand that because you would say:
Oh look, all people believe things.
The word belief certainly seems to be the sticking point. You associate it
with weak minded, backwards religionists and treat it like it is pollution.
The path to knowledge is:
Observation - you use your senses to absorb the world around you
Filtering - your mind tosses out what it does not value.
Analysis - your mind compares valuable observations to existing stored
patterns looking for anomalies.
Curiosity - anomalies can either disturb or inspire. The mind tends to
filter out disturbing anomalies and pursue interesting ones.
Investigation - the mind gathers more specific observations from its own
senses and, if open, from others' observations.
Conjecture - the mind forms possible explanations for the anomaly.
Theory - the mind settles on the most plausible of explanations. (This is
what I refer to as belief. Maybe my definition would cause less rage if I
used theory system instead of belief system...)
Hypothesis - the mind plans experiments to prove/disprove the theory
Testing - Scientific method in action.
Knowledge - If the theory is proven accurate it becomes knowledge.
Much gets stuck at the theory stage. Your earlier answer seems to indicate
that you toss this unprovable stuff in an "information" bin without any
value judgment. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
What I think you find problematic (I know I do) are those that don't know
the difference between not-yet-provable theory and knowledge.
When you are grown up you may be able to dimly understand the viewpoint
of the second.
Do you find condescension to have any value in discussions such as these? Do
you have a need to feel superior? Just curious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Will Brittland" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 01:19:38 AM |
|
|
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R_ydnSGhkItfva3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160768532.288850.209830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
I do have one serious question for you.
At last, after seemingly weeks you manage a serious question. Or one
you claim to be so.
I was too busy trying to explain myself...
Reading this thread I believe you are trying to make some honest, sincere
arguments but in general I think you are using a Socratic method to derive a
"truth" by demonstration that you have already determined. The bottom line,
I believe, is this: You would like to show that science is based on faith
as much as religion and that it depends as much on authoritarianism as
religion does. Your conclusion, therefore, is that they should both have
equal opportunity in the curriculum of public schools. That's what this is
really all about, isn't it? Or maybe you need some reassurance for your own
personal beliefs that people who believe in science are no more rational or
rigorous in their beliefs than you are.
The reason people like myself believe in science is because of the methods
and rules for gaining knowledge. We know that the academic community has
standards that do not allow outright fraud or abject authoritarianism.
Scientific theories are rigorously derived and subject to severe scrutiny,
or they are rejected. A cardinal rule of science is that nothing is sacred:
evidence countering even our most cherished beliefs must be given fair
audition. Sometimes these rules are not followed, but eventually, the truth
comes out. Take some time to read about the process of rational inquiry,
the foundation of science. Then compare that to how religious beliefs come
about. You will see that in all honesty, there is very little comparison.
You ask a legitimate question. And it is one that science advocates should
be ready and willing to answer. I am not the best representative of that
community. Perhaps someone can recommend a good book that covers this.
Carl Sagan touched on these points but darn, I can't remember in which
books. From deep in my past I seem to remember Francis Bacon had some good
words on this, but again, I can't cite a reference. Maybe others will help
me out here.
Will B.
***Down with gravity!
Vacuum sucks!
Reality is a crock!***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ Rose" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 11:10:38 AM |
|
|
"Will Brittland" <jwbritt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59udnTlL9bthT6zYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R_ydnSGhkItfva3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160768532.288850.209830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
I do have one serious question for you.
At last, after seemingly weeks you manage a serious question. Or one
you claim to be so.
I was too busy trying to explain myself...
Reading this thread I believe you are trying to make some honest, sincere
arguments but in general I think you are using a Socratic method to derive
a "truth" by demonstration that you have already determined.
Explain, not derive. Excellent observation on my passive Socratic method. I
have found people tend to pay more attention to the words if they are in
response to their questions, so I usually wait to be asked.
The bottom line, I believe,
Uh-oh, you used that hateful word... Throughout these threads there was a
singular resistance to any admission to "belief", like it was a disease.
is this: You would like to show that science is based on faith as much as
religion and that it depends as much on authoritarianism as religion does.
Not really. I'm trying to point out that trust in another's observations is
required in order to learn. In other words, you must believe them...
Your conclusion, therefore, is that they should both have equal
opportunity in the curriculum of public schools. That's what this is
really all about, isn't it? Or maybe you need some reassurance for your
own personal beliefs that people who believe in science are no more
rational or rigorous in their beliefs than you are.
Not even close. You have mistaken me for a religionist. If you read (or have
read) the other threads you will likely realize this.
The reason people like myself believe in science is because of the methods
and rules for gaining knowledge. We know that the academic community has
standards that do not allow outright fraud or abject authoritarianism.
Scientific theories are rigorously derived and subject to severe scrutiny,
or they are rejected. A cardinal rule of science is that nothing is
sacred: evidence countering even our most cherished beliefs must be given
fair audition.
Too bad that wasn't the case with this thread. Fair audition only applies if
they can read it in a dictionary.
Sometimes these rules are not followed, but eventually, the truth comes
out. Take some time to read about the process of rational inquiry, the
foundation of science. Then compare that to how religious beliefs come
about. You will see that in all honesty, there is very little comparison.
You ask a legitimate question. And it is one that science advocates
should be ready and willing to answer. I am not the best representative
of that community. Perhaps someone can recommend a good book that covers
this. Carl Sagan touched on these points but darn, I can't remember in
which books.
Demon Haunted World?
From deep in my past I seem to remember Francis Bacon had some good words
on this, but again, I can't cite a reference. Maybe others will help me
out here.
Thank you for your reasonable and thoughtful reply.
Will B.
***Down with gravity!
Vacuum sucks!
Reality is a crock!***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 06:57:22 PM |
|
|
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HLKdnTSsKYvhwK_YnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
This may help a little fwiw .. basic but useful resource as a starter /
thought provoker .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Belief is usually defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition
without its verification; therefore a belief is a subjective mental
interpretation derived from perceptions, contemplation(reasoning), or
communication.
In the psychological sense, belief is a representational mental state that
takes the form of a propositional attitude.
Belief can be understood as a state of mind in the process of increasing
understanding that is sometimes called deduction. As people develop
structures of understandings from observation or learned facts (generally
accepted truths), they create a theory that is not unlike a bridge, sitting
on those pillars of facts. This structure-building process is sometimes
called induction. A general understanding of the specific facts is created.
As people use these theories in their daily activities, research or
experimentation, they tell themselves: I believe the underlying structure is
true, to the best of my understanding - so, based on this theory (faith), I
will see what is to come of it. This application and testing of faith is
sometimes called deduction. New, specific information is developed by
testing general understanding. This application of the general to the
specific is what can be called faith; belief is our thinking that our faith
is applicable in a given situation.
In essence, religious belief is similar. The difference lies in how
specifics are approached: it could be said that science generally builds up
from facts using induction, while religion generally builds down from
accepted general principles using deduction. The common area of these two
pyramids is a diamond that is accepted from both directions. The
understanding (faith) and the applicability of that understanding (belief)
are such pairs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 03:05:50 PM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
The bottom line, I believe,
Uh-oh, you used that hateful word... Throughout these threads there was a
singular resistance to any admission to "belief", like it was a disease.
Because it was likely to be abused by being shuffled like a three card
trick to 'prove' some political agenda.
But in the end its use was unrequired, the preconceived dogma was
paraded without any evidence being needed or noticed, not that it would
have made any difference at all either way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 08:45:48 PM |
|
|
Will Brittland wrote:
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R_ydnSGhkItfva3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160768532.288850.209830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
I do have one serious question for you.
At last, after seemingly weeks you manage a serious question. Or one
you claim to be so.
I was too busy trying to explain myself...
Reading this thread I believe you are trying to make some honest, sincere
arguments but in general I think you are using a Socratic method to derive a
"truth" by demonstration that you have already determined. The bottom line,
I believe, is this: You would like to show that science is based on faith
as much as religion and that it depends as much on authoritarianism as
religion does. Your conclusion, therefore, is that they should both have
equal opportunity in the curriculum of public schools. That's what this is
really all about, isn't it? Or maybe you need some reassurance for your own
personal beliefs that people who believe in science are no more rational or
rigorous in their beliefs than you are.
The reason people like myself believe in science is because of the methods
and rules for gaining knowledge. We know that the academic community has
standards that do not allow outright fraud or abject authoritarianism.
Scientific theories are rigorously derived and subject to severe scrutiny,
or they are rejected. A cardinal rule of science is that nothing is sacred:
evidence countering even our most cherished beliefs must be given fair
audition. Sometimes these rules are not followed, but eventually, the truth
comes out. Take some time to read about the process of rational inquiry,
the foundation of science. Then compare that to how religious beliefs come
about. You will see that in all honesty, there is very little comparison.
I would have to disagree. Science has the same
social structure as other religions and fills the
same social and intellectual nitch. If science
were not a religion it would not come into such
direct conflict with the other systems which
offer Truth.
As a system for offering Truth Science is pretty
good, and I make use of its methodology myself,
but it is still a religion. The Truth offered by the
One God religions, on the other hand, is based
upon an evil idea.
(I don't believe in Truth myself.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 08:50:15 PM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2006 18:45:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1160963148.553966.230350@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Will Brittland wrote:
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R_ydnSGhkItfva3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160768532.288850.209830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
I do have one serious question for you.
At last, after seemingly weeks you manage a serious question. Or one
you claim to be so.
I was too busy trying to explain myself...
Reading this thread I believe you are trying to make some honest, sincere
arguments but in general I think you are using a Socratic method to derive a
"truth" by demonstration that you have already determined. The bottom line,
I believe, is this: You would like to show that science is based on faith
as much as religion and that it depends as much on authoritarianism as
religion does. Your conclusion, therefore, is that they should both have
equal opportunity in the curriculum of public schools. That's what this is
really all about, isn't it? Or maybe you need some reassurance for your own
personal beliefs that people who believe in science are no more rational or
rigorous in their beliefs than you are.
The reason people like myself believe in science is because of the methods
and rules for gaining knowledge. We know that the academic community has
standards that do not allow outright fraud or abject authoritarianism.
Scientific theories are rigorously derived and subject to severe scrutiny,
or they are rejected. A cardinal rule of science is that nothing is sacred:
evidence countering even our most cherished beliefs must be given fair
audition. Sometimes these rules are not followed, but eventually, the truth
comes out. Take some time to read about the process of rational inquiry,
the foundation of science. Then compare that to how religious beliefs come
about. You will see that in all honesty, there is very little comparison.
I would have to disagree. Science has the same
social structure as other religions and fills the
same social and intellectual nitch. If science
were not a religion it would not come into such
direct conflict with the other systems which
offer Truth.
As a system for offering Truth Science is pretty
good, and I make use of its methodology myself,
but it is still a religion. The Truth offered by the
One God religions, on the other hand, is based
upon an evil idea.
(I don't believe in Truth myself.)
You appear to be equating knowledge with received truth (or as you call
it Truth) to defend your thesis. I don't accept that choice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 10:00:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:27:00 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160768532.288850.209830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You appear to think that I need to "know" this. That I need to be able
to see a comet and say "that is made of ice". I don't. If some say that
a particulatr comet is probably ice or blue cheese or some other I may
find that it is interesting as to why they determined that. I may even
be interested in the evidence that led them to say that. But I don't
have to 'believe' it either way. It is not that I don't care, but I
don't have to make up my mind one way or the other. If I need to
relate it to something else I will use the evidence and not someones
assertion.
Evidence collected by someone else?
Objective evidence is objective evidence. Does it matter if I pick up
a rock or you pick it up? It's still the same rock. Testing it for
calcium will have the same result, regardless of who picked it up or
who tested it.
While you can evaluate your own attitude to evidence and beliefs, you
want to extrapolate your workings to be that of everyone else. Perhaps
there is a 'belief gene' that makes the brain work in particular ways.
You really think humans are that different?
Atheists have no theistic belief and theists do, so in that regard,
yes. Most theists have no idea what it is to have no theistic belief
- they think that atheists have a different belief, or a different
kind of belief, when it comes to theism. We don't. We just totally
lack the thing you call your religious belief, your faith, your
"knowledge of your god".
But I doubt that you will ever understand that because you would say:
Oh look, all people believe things.
The word belief certainly seems to be the sticking point. You associate it
with weak minded, backwards religionists and treat it like it is pollution.
No, clinging to a belief in the face of objective evidence to the
contrary is pretty weak-minded.
The path to knowledge is:
Observation - you use your senses to absorb the world around you
So where did you observe this god of yours?
Filtering - your mind tosses out what it does not value.
That's subjective, not objective. It leads to a conclusion that
you're original idea was correct before you have enough evidence to
draw a valid conclusion.
Much gets stuck at the theory stage.
Nothing gets past the filter stage. If you've already decided what
observations are 'valuable' and which ones aren't, you'll reach the
conclusion you started with, because your idea of 'valuable' is driven
by what you already thought.
You can't filter until AFTER you've reached your conclusion. If
you've reached it at the start of the process, why waste time
completing the process? Just stick with your original idea.
Your earlier answer seems to indicate
that you toss this unprovable stuff in an "information" bin without any
value judgment.
Initially of course, since you have no way to determine which
observation is valuable and which isn't. If you did you wouldn't need
to research, since you'd already have your conclusion.
What I think you find problematic (I know I do) are those that don't know
the difference between not-yet-provable theory and knowledge.
Theories aren't provable, they're only disprovable. Your not knowing
that is problematic.
When you are grown up you may be able to dimly understand the viewpoint
of the second.
Do you find condescension to have any value in discussions such as these? Do
you have a need to feel superior? Just curious.
Do you think treating a duck as if it were a dog is better than
treating it as if it's duck? Just curious.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 10:51:29 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
....
Atheists have no theistic belief and theists do, so in that regard,
yes. Most theists have no idea what it is to have no theistic belief
- they think that atheists have a different belief, or a different
kind of belief, when it comes to theism. We don't. We just totally
lack the thing you call your religious belief, your faith, your
....
I would have to disagree. Someone who simply
lacked the Theistic belief would not consider
themself Atheist. In order to consider yourself
an Atheist you have to be aware of the notion
of One God and reject it. More importantly, in
order to consider someone else Atheist you
have to be aware of the notion of Theism. Someone
who lacks the belief in a God may be considered
an Atheist by an Atheist (or Theist), but they are
not in themsleves an Atheist. Just because you
form notions and apply them does not mean that
it is appropriate to do so. To assert otherwise
is to give words the status of gods.
BTW -- God and I have the same ontological
status. We are both stories. Either both God
and I exist or neither of us do. Since I do not
adhere to this God, it is probably best to
consider me non-theistic. I do consider the
idea of One God a bad idea; which ought to
be dropped and forgotten without regard to the
existence of the object of this evil idea.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
14 Oct 2006 04:10:16 PM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2006 20:51:29 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
...
Atheists have no theistic belief and theists do, so in that regard,
yes. Most theists have no idea what it is to have no theistic belief
- they think that atheists have a different belief, or a different
kind of belief, when it comes to theism. We don't. We just totally
lack the thing you call your religious belief, your faith, your
...
I would have to disagree. Someone who simply
lacked the Theistic belief would not consider
themself Atheist.
I have to disagree. I simply lack all theistic belief, which is WHY I
call myself an atheist.
In order to consider yourself
an Atheist you have to be aware of the notion
of One God and reject it.
I don't reject it - it's someone else's belief. At very most, I
ignore it.
More importantly, in
order to consider someone else Atheist you
have to be aware of the notion of Theism.
All atheists are aware of what theism is.
Someone
who lacks the belief in a God may be considered
an Atheist by an Atheist (or Theist), but they are
not in themsleves an Atheist.
According to the Romans, if you lack belief in the correct god you're
an atheist (Christians were atheists). According to modern usage, if
you hold a belief in ANY god you're a theist. If you don't you're an
atheist. A chair is trivially an atheist. Reductio ad Absurdum, but
true nonetheless.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
14 Oct 2006 05:27:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:10:16 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 20:51:29 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
...
Atheists have no theistic belief and theists do, so in that regard,
yes. Most theists have no idea what it is to have no theistic belief
- they think that atheists have a different belief, or a different
kind of belief, when it comes to theism. We don't. We just totally
lack the thing you call your religious belief, your faith, your
...
I would have to disagree. Someone who simply
lacked the Theistic belief would not consider
themself Atheist.
I have to disagree. I simply lack all theistic belief, which is WHY I
call myself an atheist.
Likewise.
I don't know what other word to use. Besides which, it's
linguistically correct.
And I'm not agnostic because I haven't got anything to be agnostic
about.
If we coin a new word, the theist majority will redefine it because
whatever we explain, they are convinced we "believe [something that
exists] doesn't exist".
In order to consider yourself
an Atheist you have to be aware of the notion
of One God and reject it.
I don't reject it - it's someone else's belief. At very most, I
ignore it.
Exactly.
More importantly, in
order to consider someone else Atheist you
have to be aware of the notion of Theism.
All atheists are aware of what theism is.
It's an acknowledgement that people called theists exist, and that we
aren't a member of that set.
Someone
who lacks the belief in a God may be considered
an Atheist by an Atheist (or Theist), but they are
not in themsleves an Atheist.
According to the Romans, if you lack belief in the correct god you're
an atheist (Christians were atheists). According to modern usage, if
you hold a belief in ANY god you're a theist. If you don't you're an
atheist. A chair is trivially an atheist. Reductio ad Absurdum, but
true nonetheless.
Christians didn't have statues, graven images etc and claimed their
god was invisible, indescribable etc. Everybody else had lights in the
sky, statues etc that could be pointed to. By the Romans' idea of what
a god was, they were atheists. Carthaginians and others weren't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
14 Oct 2006 08:58:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:27:19 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And I'm not agnostic because I haven't got anything to be agnostic
about.
Well ...
Gnosticism says "I know" that there is a god, that there isn't a god.
Agnosticism says "huh?". I'm agnostic. I don't claim to know. Lack
of knowledge.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Kilpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 11:42:32 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:na53j212nqooj8hc9q3j30ed55mnseete9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:27:19 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And I'm not agnostic because I haven't got anything to be agnostic
about.
Well ...
Gnosticism says "I know" that there is a god, that there isn't a god.
Agnosticism says "huh?". I'm agnostic. I don't claim to know. Lack
of knowledge.
How can this be about knowledge when the subject is something that is
evidently purely hypothetical? Isn't agnosticism about the denial and
repudiation, on principle, of religious belief, as Thomas Huxley explains in
"Why I Am Not A Chrtistian"?
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Huxley
See that term, 'believe' in there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 07:18:41 PM |
|
|
"James Kilpatrick" <jk@microwsoft.com> wrote in message
news:hO2dneAPavRo-a_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:na53j212nqooj8hc9q3j30ed55mnseete9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:27:19 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And I'm not agnostic because I haven't got anything to be agnostic
about.
Well ...
Gnosticism says "I know" that there is a god, that there isn't a god.
Agnosticism says "huh?". I'm agnostic. I don't claim to know. Lack
of knowledge.
How can this be about knowledge when the subject is something that is
evidently purely hypothetical? Isn't agnosticism about the denial and
repudiation, on principle, of religious belief, as Thomas Huxley explains
in
"Why I Am Not A Chrtistian"?
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Huxley
See that term, 'believe' in there?
Try a dictionary and other sources, and not just one opinion quote from one
man!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
1.. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2.. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess
true atheism.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the
essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
knowledge is limited to experience.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven
but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The
term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist
Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of
exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without,
not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek
word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean
"higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" hence, Gnostic referred to
those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was
considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he
called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that
explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a
rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for
himself, its first published use being in 1870.
Sean: IOW Huxley saw himself as having NO "higher, esoteric knowledge of
spiritual things". Undoubtedly he was correct.
This excellent site offers information about those that did have such
knowledge. http://www.gnosis.org/
Intro essay http://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm
Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the
Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was
gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis were gnostic too,
modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka were gnostic.. I learned
further that science is gnostic and superstition is gnostic.Hegel is gnostic
and Marx is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally gnostic.1
begin 666 omacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`.`/<``/___P```$T`=9_WOPR"9H%U'U `G$CWO["3`0!,`$T`
M``!-``\```!<'U `..IO`%<!``"4\V\`J(C[OZB!][______A.IO`"A)][\`
M````=1]0`)Q(][\!````7!]0`+OQ0P#8,5 `>/-O`&8```!<'U ```0``.P4
M4 `!````V#%0`$P`````! ````! `-@Q4 ````````````$```#P%5 `! $`
M````````````[!10`/CJ;P!L``@`#P`5``````!<'U `8'- `-0"2 !/<&5N
M``2(W:<%____````+B !6P``_P`!`/___P`D>T4Z7&%H9#-H=&U<1TE&`&]M
M86-R+F=I9@`F][_3&?._`'!O``((``",ZV\`( ```+(@```J)?._`'!O``,`
M`@@```((`@!O`'9[+%,"""8"-MU-3Z<%``!$`0(`IP6&>YBD! `A`@`````V
MW9)[90? "C;=```"" ``I'MO'@((`@A$`:<%U@4`````MGO/'$<$``#./[<7
MYQ8``.<6.(UH1[<7UHL^-\\7`0#>%" ``@"8!&\```#[5[<77P$$C %$*.@"
M`)S?`@#G%K3G`@"8!&\`6'P@`(\!^'L,*O>_`@@```````!>`10`/(PM)%\7
M````````% 0@`)S?`@#G%H2,13I<86AD,VAT;5Q'249<;VUA8W(N9VEF``#,
M9R<)7P$O$@``7P$````````4!" `7GP7#[<7```P`#8`M.<"`!P/K'PH`(\!
M7BF8!9T%N'P@`(\!#"KWOS `-@`"``_%```&`!@L!Q>&!<\7X.QO`,SO;P"(
M)O>_U!WVOP!P;P`?0?>_10```%@?4 #MB?>_`@4```````! ````# !-````
M30!8'U `0 `````````"!0```@4``/SL;P"!B_>_``!-`)B+][\``$T`00``
M`$$```!F``````````$````@[6\`R9KWOP``30`&F_>_#()F@68```!F````
M``0``&8````%AD,```0``"'Y! $`````+ `````&``X`0 @A``$('!A@((""
:!Q$:%!B@H4.%!QE"7$@184&(%QE2W!@0`#L`
`
end
begin 666 mdash.gif
M1TE&.#EA$0`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````1`!8```(6A(^IR^T/
2HYRTVBN#WKQK#(;B2%8$"@`[
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 12:52:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:42:32 -0700, "James Kilpatrick"
<jk@microwsoft.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:na53j212nqooj8hc9q3j30ed55mnseete9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:27:19 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And I'm not agnostic because I haven't got anything to be agnostic
about.
Well ...
Gnosticism says "I know" that there is a god, that there isn't a god.
Agnosticism says "huh?". I'm agnostic. I don't claim to know. Lack
of knowledge.
How can this be about knowledge when the subject is something that is
evidently purely hypothetical?
Gnosis isn't knowledge of a god, it's knowledge. Knowledge is
hypothetical?
Isn't agnosticism about the denial and
repudiation, on principle, of religious belief, as Thomas Huxley explains in
"Why I Am Not A Chrtistian"?
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Huxley
See that term, 'believe' in there?
"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether
I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an
idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I
learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I
came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of
these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of
these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed
from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain
"gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of
existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong
conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on
my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that
opinion. [...]
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the
appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively
antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know
so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the
earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I,
too, had a tail, like the other foxes.
- "Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics," 1908.
IOW, lack of gnosis (knowledge). Applied to religion in this case,
but he's defining it as a counter to gnosis, not as a counter to
belief.
"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective
truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically
justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my
opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
- "Agnosticism and Christianity," 1889
Can't show evidence of it, don't claim it.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
14 Oct 2006 09:17:59 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:27:19 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And I'm not agnostic because I haven't got anything to be agnostic
about.
Well ...
Gnosticism says "I know" that there is a god, that there isn't a god.
Agnosticism says "huh?". I'm agnostic. I don't claim to know. Lack
of knowledge.
Agnosticism is the position that the question
is worth asking, and one doesn't have the
answer.
The question isn't worth asking. It doesn't
matter if this God exists or not. All that
matters is the idea of God, and it is an
evil idea.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Kilpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 11:57:10 AM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote
Agnosticism is the position that the question
is worth asking
No it isn't. Agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate religious belief, as
Thomas Huxley explains in 'Why I Am Not A Christian'.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Huxley
See that term, 'believe' in there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 08:25:15 PM |
|
|
James Kilpatrick wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote
Agnosticism is the position that the question
is worth asking
No it isn't. Agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate religious belief, as
Thomas Huxley explains in 'Why I Am Not A Christian'.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Huxley
See that term, 'believe' in there?
Hi Skeptic! Where do you get these names from?
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
