Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2021 20:27:42 GMT
I don't think it's a question of happiness. People are happy (or say they're happy) for the most idiotic of reasons. It's about self-respect, whenever people ask me if I am a believer... My first reaction is that of someone who's just been insulted. I don't necessarily show it but it's definitely how I feel. Just like a kid of a certain age who's asked seriously if he believes in Santa Claus. My first and foremost argument against religion is that it's stupid. It's a remnant from a time when people didn't know better. We're supposed to have outgrown it but just as some people still give a sizable part of their income to fortune-tellers there are others who devote their time to degrading asinine rituals.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 12, 2021 1:19:37 GMT
To believe or not to believe. The Monkees had a song about it. "I'm a Believer." the gist of it is the supposed author of the song was not a believer but became one. In this case, love. So don't be insulted when someone asks you if you're a believer. I think it's good you don't show it, but think like Jillette Penn does. He's a devout atheist, if there is such a thing, but not what I call an "evangelical" atheist. By that I mean someone like Madalyn Murry O'Hair. Here's a link to what Penn thinks. www.churchpop.com/2016/01/16/atheist-penn-jillette-christians-evangelize/ |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 12, 2021 1:26:16 GMT
also this. belief in a creator requires "suspension of disbelief." so does believing there is not a creator. Which requires more? I submit that believing there is not a creator does. Assuming the big bang theory is correct, there was once a time, before time even, when there was this infinitely dense piece of matter. It burst open, and its guts began expanding to fill a void that was not space. It was something other than space, because space is what is between the planets. What was the void it went into? I don't know, but I think Einstein knew there had to be one and even he couldn't explain it. So why would you expect an old fart who hunts wascally wabbits for fun to do it?
In this theory, time also began at that point. When that ball of matter burst and and it began expanding into that void. Prior to that, there was no time.
Think how much suspension of disbelief it requires to assume that ball just happened. All on its own. It was just there. Takes a lot it seems to me.
The atheist says he can explain everything about the universe without the need of invoking a creator back to the mili second or whatever prior to the big bang. The believer in a creator says he can explain that. "God said." And what euphemism for a creative act like that is better than big bang?
So I can understand believing in a different creator. What I find hard to understand is being so sure there isn't one. It seems to me there is more evidence there IS a creator than there isn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2021 7:01:49 GMT
To believe or not to believe. The Monkees had a song about it. "I'm a Believer." the gist of it is the supposed author of the song was not a believer but became one. In this case, love. So don't be insulted when someone asks you if you're a believer. I think it's good you don't show it, but think like Jillette Penn does. He's a devout atheist, if there is such a thing, but not what I call an "evangelical" atheist. By that I mean someone like Madalyn Murry O'Hair. Here's a link to what Penn thinks. www.churchpop.com/2016/01/16/atheist-penn-jillette-christians-evangelize/"evangelical" atheist! You "fucking" asshole! |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 12, 2021 13:39:04 GMT
To believe or not to believe. The Monkees had a song about it. "I'm a Believer." the gist of it is the supposed author of the song was not a believer but became one. In this case, love. So don't be insulted when someone asks you if you're a believer. I think it's good you don't show it, but think like Jillette Penn does. He's a devout atheist, if there is such a thing, but not what I call an "evangelical" atheist. By that I mean someone like Madalyn Murry O'Hair. Here's a link to what Penn thinks. www.churchpop.com/2016/01/16/atheist-penn-jillette-christians-evangelize/"evangelical" atheist! You "fucking" asshole! you humorless twit! harrumph!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2021 17:32:00 GMT
"evangelical" atheist! You "fucking" asshole! you humorless twit! harrumph!!! You're about as humoristic as a heart attack, you braindead shit sack! |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 12, 2021 23:06:10 GMT
you humorless twit! harrumph!!! You're about as humoristic as a heart attack, you braindead shit sack! |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 12, 2021 23:10:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 12, 2021 23:29:14 GMT
also this. belief in a creator requires "suspension of disbelief." so does believing there is not a creator. Which requires more? I submit that believing there is not a creator does. Assuming the big bang theory is correct, there was once a time, before time even, when there was this infinitely dense piece of matter. This is incorrect. The appearance of the infinitely dense bit of matter is the beginning of time. There is no "before", because there must be a universe for there to be time. It would take quite a bit if things weren't so odd at the quantum level: quantum entanglement, effects without causes, effects before causes, etc. It doesn't function like classical physics. There is no "prior to the Big Bang". The Big Bang is the beginning of time. Time is part of the structure of the universe, not something outside of it. |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 13, 2021 1:01:36 GMT
Well, thanks for clearing THAT up!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2021 22:07:02 GMT
Well, thanks for clearing THAT up! It's like talking to a potted plant. |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 19, 2021 22:54:56 GMT
Estelle is an uninvited guest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 16:44:10 GMT
Estelle is an uninvited guest. Sherlock Holmes has got nothing on you. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Nov 21, 2021 5:44:41 GMT
Didn't the Big Bang create all of our universe's matter, energy, space and time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 13:16:11 GMT
Didn't the Big Bang create all of our universe's matter, energy, space and time? Pretty much. There is a slight imbalance between matter and anti-matter, that is for each billion or about anti-matter particle of one kind, appears one supplemental particle of matter that will not be destroyed when anti-matter and matter will collide annihilating each other creating energy, and that's why our universe contains matter and not just energy. Space is created by matter and/or energy, and time is just a property of space. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 21, 2021 18:23:00 GMT
Didn't the Big Bang create all of our universe's matter, energy, space and time? Yes, but the question is: what caused the Big Bang? There are a few proposed answers: 1) Something like the god of Abraham (YHWH, El, Allah, etc.). 2) Some sort of outside the universe fundamental cause, The Uncaused First Cause, which we might call divine but is not like the god of Abraham. This is Aristotle's view. 3) Uncaused. Seems impossible, but quantum mechanics confirms that there are uncaused events. 4) Caused by something that is, technically, after the Big Bang. Again, seems impossible, but quantum mechanics confirms that events can precede their causes at the quantum level. 5) The universe itself is infinite, forever expanding, contracting, then expanding again. This is something like a modern Hindu or Buddhist view. 6) Unanswerable. Whatever happened cannot be fully explored and/or understood by humans, much like a cat cannot understand calculus. You might be surprised to learn that I lean towards #6. The laws of physics were, themselves, created by the Big Bang, but they are our only tool to investigate the workings of the universe. How do you explore the workings of something that, itself, made our tools of exploration? It would be like writing a repair manual for a faster-than-light engine. In fact, weirder than that. At any rate, all of these answers have some benefits but also significant problems. |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Nov 21, 2021 22:24:05 GMT
I think I listened to this debate live. I'm not sure what you mean by "Lennox misunderstands Faith completely, at least from the perspective of Faithism." Is that, like, a "prosperity gospel" faith in faith itself? As for Dawkins, it's not that he misunderstands the value of faith. He misdefines it. He defines it as "blind belief, regardless of evidence for or against" (my quotes represent my own paraphrase--those are not his exact words). It's not completely his fault. That was what emerged out of the Enlightenment which pitted "faith" against "reason." Unfortunately, that's a far cry from the "faith" described in the Bible, for which biblical writers appealed to experience, testimony, etc. Not at all "blind belief." The biblical concept of faith is the Greek word pistis, in which "belief" or "choice of opinion" is a tiny part, overshadowed by loyalty, trust, faith fulness, etc. We use that concept when it comes to national or organizational loyalty ("keeping the faith") or in marriage ("faithful"), neither of which have much to do with what opinions you choose to hold that cannot be supported by evidence. Dawkins argues against a very feeble straw man. When it comes to "faith in Jesus the Messiah," it's not opinion about certain historical details; it's trust, loyalty, allegiance. What I meant was that he sees no value in practicing the skill of believing in something with no proof, the core requirement of faith. Denying one's self this incredible tool, just for the purpose of being 'right', is the greatest error someone of intelligence can make. Putting pride over utility.
Faithism, as far as I can tell, is the ONLY loophole that allows someone of science (me), to also be someone of genuine Faith.
Freon
I think someone in this thread defined "faith" as "belief in something you know is not true." That's compartmentalization, not faith. Faith is believing something is true without tangible, objective proof beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 22, 2021 14:24:21 GMT
What I meant was that he sees no value in practicing the skill of believing in something with no proof, the core requirement of faith. Denying one's self this incredible tool, just for the purpose of being 'right', is the greatest error someone of intelligence can make. Putting pride over utility.
Faithism, as far as I can tell, is the ONLY loophole that allows someone of science (me), to also be someone of genuine Faith.
Freon
I think someone in this thread defined "faith" as "belief in something you know is not true." That's compartmentalization, not faith. Faith is believing something is true without tangible, objective proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, and... Biblical faith is more than just "belief." The Greek word for faith ( pistis) more accurately connotes loyalty (one scholar says "believing loyalty"), trust, allegiance, faithful ness, etc. Really, that changes everything. We see vestiges of this concept in the phrase "keep the faith" (although the the root of that could be understood as "the faith" meaning the collection of doctrinal truths, I don't believe that's what the phrase really means) and the motto of the Marines: semper fi ("always faithful"). Having capitulated to that Enlightenment definition (the definition you point out), we have intellectualized our "faith" into something like checking a bunch of doctrinal points...and that's it. And for many (on both sides of the argument, I believe), "faith" is reduced to "suspending your disbelief to acquiesce to a bunch of propositions," an idea which rightly ridiculed, because it's ridiculous. How you act reflects what you truly believe, regardless of what you say you believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 22, 2021 14:25:07 GMT
Didn't the Big Bang create all of our universe's matter, energy, space and time? 6) Unanswerable. Whatever happened cannot be fully explored and/or understood by humans, much like a cat cannot understand calculus. You might be surprised to learn that I lean towards #6. The laws of physics were, themselves, created by the Big Bang, but they are our only tool to investigate the workings of the universe. How do you explore the workings of something that, itself, made our tools of exploration? It would be like writing a repair manual for a faster-than-light engine. In fact, weirder than that. That's no surprise to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 22, 2021 23:24:43 GMT
I think someone in this thread defined "faith" as "belief in something you know is not true." That's compartmentalization, not faith. Faith is believing something is true without tangible, objective proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, and... Biblical faith is more than just "belief." The Greek word for faith ( pistis) more accurately connotes loyalty (one scholar says "believing loyalty"), trust, allegiance, faithful ness, etc. That may be how the word was generally used at the time, but the New Testament also uses it in the sense of "beliefs", especially in Hebrews. It would make no sense to say that loyalty is the substance of things for, the evidence of things not seen. |
|
