Understanding the Mentality and World View of the Christian Fundamentalist

[BluePhantom]

See if the far left drones can answer this:

So is Jeremiah Wright a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

Hard to know unless we got to ask him a few questions. Does he take the bible stories as literal or allegories? And does he believe non christians go to hell?

OH FUCK! EVERYONE TAKE COVER...SEALY IS HERE!!!!!

 

[orogenicman]

I hate to break it to you, but the universe is not fine-tuned for us. 99.9999 percent of the universe is utterly hostile to life.

Designed to produce life, not designed to be crammed with life at any given point in time! Perhaps we (and other advanced forms of life) are meant to expand the domain of life. Life could be established on many planets. Maybe the universe is big to reflect the glory of God.

That was not your claim, nor what the link you provided was claiming. You said that the universe was fine-tuned for life.
It is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination is it fine-tuned for life.

Nearly all life is a sitting duck for ionizing radiation. Cancer, ebola, alzheimers,

What would life be without challenges?

A lot easier, but that is not the point. Is this a challenge for this child? Or is it an awful defect that no loving god would ever allow?

It is not an empty cliché to point out that blind faith is a lazy faith. If science relied on faith, we'd all still be living in caves.

Instead of submitting your mind to lazy cliches and primitive anti-Christian bigotry check out an alternative viewpoint: Christianity and the Birth of Science

Are you suggesting that only Christians submit to blind faith? If so I take issue with that claim.

Science is about gathering emperical evidence, and then creating a hypothesis based on that evidence and then testing it to see if it is a best fit with the evidence.

You are being very superficial. What is real? Is this empirical evidence what is real?

Don't change the subject. There is nothing simple or superficial about the scientific method. it is a pain-staking method that, unlike blind faith, requires a hell of a lot of sweat and tears to accomplish. But you don't have to worry about that. All you have to do is throw your hands up and declare "God did it", and go about your merry way. And you will stay just as ignorant as you are now. Contrary to what some say, ignorance is not bliss. It isn't even an excuse.

In fact, it is fairly astonishing how Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are oblivious to the whole rise of postmodern skepticism. They do not bother to address the objection that, from Hume and Kant to Foucault and Derrida, a progressively secularizing West has grown increasingly less capable of maintaining the rational foundations of scientific realism. In short, they are oblivious to the whole problem of the loss of absolutes in the modern and postmodern eras.

Link: The Hollow Men Hitchens Dawkins and Harris - Taki s Magazine

That is an ironic statement since it isn't the secularization of the west that is hurting its scientific foundations. it is the rise of fundamentalist religious dogma that is killing science in the west.

EVERYONE can learn the method and use it for themselves, evern you. Even Daniel Jepsen.

Anyone can become a Christian too.

Yeah it is the easiest thing in the world to do. All you have to do is close your eyes and ears, and shout "god did it", and then you can climb back in your cave and ignore the rest of the world. Lazy system, as I said. it doesn't require you to think. In fact, it discourages independent thought.

Erm, what? That makes no sense. Atheists simply don't believe in the supernatural. Full Stop.

Actually some atheists say there is no God.

I'm not "some" atheist. I am an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural. That includes magic sky daddies.

Because there is no such thing as the supernatural.

You're deeply confused. First you say you simply don't believe in God now you say you adhere to the materialist philosophy. Now you are making a statement so please provide evidence. What is your evidence there is no such thing as the supernatural? Why do you believe in the materialist philosophy?

Utter lack of evidence. Full Stop. I studied anthropology for four years, psychology for two years (including abnormal psychology - my girlfriend is a psychiatric nurse), and geology for five years. I have read about hundreds of cultures and religious beliefs, and have seen more than a few up close and personal. I have studied this planet, and the life on it, including the prehistoric life in great detail. Nothing I have seen, heard, or read leads me to believe that any of this religious dogma is anything other than wishful thinking. And much of it is pure slight of hand and scams perpetrated on the weak and vulnerable. There are no ghosts. There are no fairies. There are no angels. There are no devils. There are no monsters under your bed. There are no gods. Every holy man is not holy. They are lying or deluded. You believe in one god. The Greeks believed in many gods. You are an atheist wrt to ancient Greek religion. I am an atheist wrt your one god. So we are not as far apart in our thinking as you suppose.

 

[orogenicman]

On the contrary. Scientists are keen to keep an open mind, so long as our brains don't fall out.

Again, you contradict yourself. You speak in absolutes about the existence of God, yet confess you have no evidence to back your position. That's not an open mind. That is a very closed and biased mind. An open mind would say "I do not believe in the existence of God, although I may be wrong". You just flat out say "there is no God". You demonstrate the exact defects you mock.

No sir, I do not. I am willing to entertain any evidence you might have to unambiguously demonstrate the existence of your god. Got anything like that? Anything at all?

 

[orogenicman]

To have faith is to believe despite the lack of evidence...You don't know that god exists any more than I know that your god doesn't. But my non-belief is not faith. It is lack of faith.

You just contradicted your own definition. You believe that God is a myth, yet you have no evidence to support that position. By your own definition, that is faith. It's in faith in the absence of God, but faith nonetheless.

There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that your god is a myth. Do you believe in talking snakes? Do you believe in one god or many? Because many cultures believe in more than one god. Are the Greek gods myths? Most Christians believe that they are myths despite the fact that there are literally tons of relics still in existence that they used to worship their gods. What ancient relics still exist for Christianity? Why is your god real and everyone else's is false when you have no evidence that it is real? Why are 2000 year old Bedouin books more real to you than the Moon rocks sitting in NASA's vaults?

 

[BluePhantom]

To have faith is to believe despite the lack of evidence...You don't know that god exists any more than I know that your god doesn't. But my non-belief is not faith. It is lack of faith.

You just contradicted your own definition. You believe that God is a myth, yet you have no evidence to support that position. By your own definition, that is faith. It's in faith in the absence of God, but faith nonetheless.

There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that your god is a myth. Do you believe in talking snakes? Do you believe in one god or many? Because many cultures believe in more than one god. Are the Greek gods myths? Most Christians believe that they are myths despite the fact that there are literally tons of relics still in existence that they used to worship their gods. What ancient relics still exist for Christianity? Why is your god real and everyone else's is false when you have no evidence that it is real? Why are 2000 year old Bedouin books more real to you than the Moon rocks sitting in NASA's vaults?

Mythological tales, allegory, and metaphor contained in scripture do not demonstrate the absence of God. It merely demonstrates the nature of how ancient man told their stories. As an anthropologist you know this very well. One need not be a literal interpreter of scripture in order to believe in God. In fact, I would argue that those who take the Bible literally are really missing the point.

But since we are discussing myth...what is myth? Let's have a look at the WOW Signal (link below). According to our life experience on this planet, the WOW Signal is so highly improbable and inexplicable as to be nearly impossible. Receiving a signal originating from deep space that is triple the intensity of standard space noise and broadcast at 1420 matching the hydrogen line? Ridiculous! Yet it happened. Right now all science can say is 'we have no idea what it was. It seems to be authentic. Beats the shit out of us'. BUT, they concede it happened. Now let's flash forward 2,000 years and assume, as is likely, that the paper printout has been destroyed, the audio has been lost, all eyewitnesses are obviously dead, first-person accounts have been lost, and there has not been a similar event since then. There is no physical evidence remaining that it happened. Does that mean it didn't? Does the WOW Signal suddenly become myth?

Where is the physical evidence of the existence of Socrates or Sun-Tzu? Were they myths too?

BTW...I never said my God was real and the rest are fake. You confuse me with a Christian fundamentalist.


Wow signal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[orogenicman]

To have faith is to believe despite the lack of evidence...You don't know that god exists any more than I know that your god doesn't. But my non-belief is not faith. It is lack of faith.

You just contradicted your own definition. You believe that God is a myth, yet you have no evidence to support that position. By your own definition, that is faith. It's in faith in the absence of God, but faith nonetheless.

There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that your god is a myth. Do you believe in talking snakes? Do you believe in one god or many? Because many cultures believe in more than one god. Are the Greek gods myths? Most Christians believe that they are myths despite the fact that there are literally tons of relics still in existence that they used to worship their gods. What ancient relics still exist for Christianity? Why is your god real and everyone else's is false when you have no evidence that it is real? Why are 2000 year old Bedouin books more real to you than the Moon rocks sitting in NASA's vaults?

Mythological tales, allegory, and metaphor contained in scripture do not demonstrate the absence of God.

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

It merely demonstrates the nature of how ancient man told their stories. As an anthropologist you know this very well. One need not be a literal interpreter of scripture in order to believe in God. In fact, I would argue that those who take the Bible literally are really missing the point.

I studied anthropology for four years in college. I am not an anthropologist. I agree that those who interpret the bible literally miss out on a lot of things. Like how it is not a science book, and contains almost nothing of scientific value.

But since we are discussing myth...what is myth? Let's have a look at the WOW Signal (link below). According to our life experience on this planet, the WOW Signal is so highly improbable and inexplicable as to be nearly impossible. Receiving a signal originating from deep space that is triple the intensity of standard space noise and broadcast at 1420 matching the hydrogen line? Ridiculous! Yet it happened. Right now all science can say is 'we have no idea what it was. It seems to be authentic. Beats the shit out of us'. BUT, they concede it happened. Now let's flash forward 2,000 years and assume, as is likely, that the paper printout has been destroyed, the audio has been lost, all eyewitnesses are obviously dead, first-person accounts have been lost, and there has not been a similar event since then. There is no physical evidence remaining that it happened. Does that mean it didn't? Does the WOW Signal suddenly become myth?

Where is the physical evidence of the existence of Socrates or Sun-Tzu? Were they myths too?

BTW...I never said my God was real and the rest are fake. You confuse me with a Christian fundamentalist.


Wow signal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

 

[BluePhantom]

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

And hence we find ourselves in the stalemate that has existed between atheists and theists since the beginning of human history.

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

Possible, but science has yet to explain it. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that there exists evidence that science cannot explain. All science can do is shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know what the hell it was'. So if that evidence disappears does it suddenly become myth? You are avoiding the question.

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

Do you believe in Socrates and/or Sun-Tzu? I have noticed you like to ask questions but you sure don't like to answer them

 

[orogenicman]

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

And hence we find ourselves in the stalemate that has existed between atheists and theists since the beginning of human history.

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

Possible, but science has yet to explain it. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that there exists evidence that science cannot explain. All science can do is shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know what the hell it was'. So if that evidence disappears does it suddenly become myth? You are avoiding the question.

BP. The unexplained is not unexplainable. Yes, that is an axiom, but one to which scientists have always acceded. One can say that we don't know 95% of the universe, and that is probably true. But we know the 5% very well. The only reason why we don't know the other 95% is because it is a big universe. Given time, who knows?

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

Do you believe in Socrates and/or Sun-Tzu? I have noticed you like to ask questions but you sure don't like to answer them

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Personally, I don't believe in god and subscribe to no religion. To many people have died in the name of religion for anyone to heed the call, in my opinion. It is the bane of mankind, and is killing this planet.

More people have died in the name of money and greed than religion. Would you throw out all manner of economics because of that?

If I could? Yes. Alas, we are all slaves to the economy. We are not slaves, however, to a magical sky daddy because he doesn't actually exist.

Ironically, that is a statement of faith. You can disprove the existence of God no more than I can prove the contrary. Thus, your statement of an absolute ("....he doesn't exist") is actually a statement of faith. You have an absolute belief that God doesn't exist despite an inability to prove it. Welcome to the community of faith.

Nope!

Logically God cannot exist because of the Omnipotence paradox.

Logic is not faith.

That only works if you believe that God is omnipotent. Besides, while it's an interesting logical exercise, it hardly establishes any proof. Thomas Young's two-slit experiment established that light acts as both a particle and a wave until observed or measured. This is totally illogical and, according to our life experience and scientific understanding, completely impossible. Yet it happens....every single time the experiment is replicated. Thus, there are things that science can observe that defy logic and are "impossible" according to our degree of understanding. Therefore, a logical argument cannot be used to establish fact. It can certainly add weight to a position, or provide an aspect of interest that acts as a catalyst for greater understanding, but it doesn't ice the cake.

I am not the one who believes in an omnipotent creator. However those that do have to deal with the logical paradox that comes with the inanity of omnipotence. It is far easier to accept the known facts about the universe and come to the logical conclusion that it has always existed and will always exist in one state or another. No omnipotent creator is necessary ergo there is no omnipotent God either.

As far as not fully understanding everything there is to know about the Universe goes I appreciate our current limitations of knowledge. Compare what we knew back when this nation was founded to what we know today. Better yet compare what we didn't know 25 years ago to what we know today. We had no knowledge of any planets outside of our solar system. Today we have identified not only the existence of those planets but their sizes and orbits.

Knowledge builds on knowledge. 3 million years ago our primate ancestors were learning how to use stone tools. Today we launch our tools into space to answer questions such as what is the age of the current state of the Universe? We have learned that all of the elements in the periodic table exist throughout the Universe and are made in stars. We, ourselves, are made of matter that was once inside of something much like our own sun.

We are nothing special, we are just one tiny part of a massive Universe that happens to have reached a level of self awareness and the ability to manipulate our environment to learn more about it. It is the height of hubris to assume that we are the only such intelligence in an eternal Universe.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Explain why an Atheist would care one way or another as to why the people of Africa embrace one religion rather than another?

This is just sad Derideo_Te. Is your reading comprehension really this poor? Galton is talking about Arabs civilizing Africa and Christians opposing slavery, etc. Of course this does not prove Galton was a Quaker or even a Christian.

Embracing religion is only of any importance to those who care about it. Atheists have no interest in who believes what. It is utterly irrelevant to them.

Laughable. Atheists often discuss religion and try to convince others that religion is foolish. What are you doing at this very moment!

Why would an Atheist want to start a "new religion"? Atheists are opposed to religion so they wouldn't advocate starting another.

If your literacy level ever improves you'll notice that Galton was trying to establish a secular religion of eugenics! Atheists often try to establish secular religions like Marxism or Rand's Objectivism. One definition of religion is: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. So you can definitely have an atheist religion.

Ironic coming from an dishonest creationist.

I'm not a creationist.

You have utterly failed to support your baseless allegation that Galton was an Atheist.

I never said he was. Please stop lying. I am saying the evidence shows Galton rejected Christianity.

Instead you have been provided with links establishing that religion was something that he was concerned about his entire life.

Yea people can be concerned with religion but still reject it.

Please stop being pathetic and admit your error.

I suggest that you go back reread your own lies. In #150 you claimed that Galton was an Agnostic.

And you are lying about not being a creationist too. Only creationists lie about Atheism being a "religion".

Religion is defined as the belief in the existence of a deity.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief that any deity exists.

And disbelief is defined as the mental rejection of something as untrue.

Great job destroying your own credibility. Have a nice day.

 

[BluePhantom]

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

You you are willing to entertain the idea that Socrates existed and give it a "probably" degree of certainty. So you do believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably". Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'. This suggests a pretty strong anti-religious bias and yet another self-contradiction. That being, the belief in something is ok, at least to the degree of "probably", as long as it's not God. Thus, by speaking in absolutes, you imply that what is reasonable for others to believe in is dependent upon your personal definitions. This is incredibly narcissistic and egocentric. You clearly think a great deal about yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

You you are willing to entertain the idea that Socrates existed and give it a "probably" degree of certainty. So you do believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably". Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'. This suggests a pretty strong anti-religious bias and yet another self-contradiction. That being, the belief in something is ok, at least to the degree of "probably", as long as it's not God. Thus, by speaking in absolutes, you imply that what is reasonable for others to believe in is dependent upon your personal definitions. This is incredibly narcissistic and egocentric. You clearly think a great deal about yourself.

That is a false equivalence IMO.

We have archaeological evidence for the existence of the ancient Greeks. We don't have evidence that states this was the tomb of Socrates and inside we find his bones. So it is fair to be skeptical that writings ascribed to him might have been penned by someone else. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the society in which Socrates lived most certainly existed. His writings are not the only evidence for the existence of that society.

Compare that to the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God outside of the writings of those who had a vested interest in convincing bronze age people that their religion had the one and only "true God". Self serving and self referencing documents with absolutely zero corroborating evidence is not a fair comparison to the one proposed above for the existence of Socrates.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am not the one who believes in an omnipotent creator. However those that do have to deal with the logical paradox that comes with the inanity of omnipotence. It is far easier to accept the known facts about the universe and come to the logical conclusion that it has always existed and will always exist in one state or another. No omnipotent creator is necessary ergo there is no omnipotent God either.

I am not sure I believe that God is omnipotent either, frankly. This is something I have thought about for quite some time and I have yet to reach a conclusion. My train of thought deals with suffering. If God is omnipotent, why does he allow innocents to suffer at the hands of natural disasters, for example? I have considered many possibilities, but one possibility is that God has created certain laws of nature to which He is bound. In other words, God's hands are tied by His own laws. If this is the case, it certainly throws the idea of an omnipotent God right out the window. It creates a host of other theological problems as well. I'll let you know when I reach a conclusion.

As far as not fully understanding everything there is to know about the Universe goes I fully appreciate our current limitations of knowledge. Compare what we knew back when this nation was founded to what we know today. Better yet compare what we didn't know 25 years ago to what we know today. We had no knowledge of any planets outside of our solar system. Today we have identified not only the existence of those planets but their sizes and orbits.

Absolutely true. However, most scientists reasoned that there were probably other planets even though they could not be seen by our level of technology at the time. There were some, as well, who insisted that there were none. Since they couldn't be seen they flat out didn't exist. This is a very closed-minded approach to science, in my opinion, and it seems to be the one that Orogen embraces...well at least when it suits his biases and purposes. Einstein reasoned that if one sees a tiger's tale sticking out of a bush they don't need to pull on it to see if it is attached to a tiger. In other words, absolute proof is not always required in order to reach a reasonable conclusion. Denying even the possibility of God is frankly unscientific, as science should consider all possibilities no matter how improbable. When commenting on God, all a scientist can really say are things like, "I have seen no evidence to support the existence of God", "I do not believe in the existence of God", or simply "I don't know". Once one crosses the line into absolute statements such as "there is no God", or "God is a myth" they are no longer speaking from the perspective of science and are now speaking from the perspective of personal believe which is no more or less valid than those with contrary beliefs.

We are nothing special, we are just one tiny part of a massive Universe that happens to have reached a level of self awareness and the ability to manipulate our environment to learn more about it. It is the height of hubris to assume that we are the only such intelligence in an eternal Universe.

No argument there

 

[orogenicman]

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

Because it was a signal. It was measured. It may be something they haven't encountered before so they don't know what it was. And so they don't ascribe any particular conclusion to it because there is not enough data. It was a one-time event. Could have been an exploding magnetar for all they know. One thing is certain, scientists don't go ascribing mythologies to signals they can't identify. jokes, maybe, but never mythologies. I would be willing to bet that if they encounter another, similar signal, we now have the technology and the robustness of in systems now that they may be able to figure out what it was - if it happens again.

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

do [/I]believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably".

The probability is good that he existed. That is not a belief. That is an educated guess based on the fact that we have two authors who wrote about him, one of which claims to have been his best student. we know who these men are (unlike most of the men who wrote the Bible, who we don't know with any certainty at all).

Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'.

What evidence, where? Plato was a well known philosopher who ascribed no magical qualities to Socrates. He was a man, a teacher and philosopher. Jesus was this allegedly magical healer who walked on water, fed 5,000 people with a handful of bread and fish, and turned water into wine, according to people we know nothing about, and aren't even sure of the dates they wrote this stuff, but are certain it wasn't when he was alive. for all we know, they made it up. There are no corroborating documents to validate the originals. Yahweh burned bushes when he wanted to speak to men (something no one had seen before nor seen since outside of a mental institution).

 

[Derideo_Te]

Denying even the possibility of God is frankly unscientific, as science should consider all possibilities no matter how improbable.

I am not a scientist but I am open to the concept of their being entities in the Universe with what would appear to be "god-like powers" in comparison to our own understanding of what is and isn't possible.

That doesn't make those entities the creators of the Universe or even the god that spawned mankind. Merely beings with more advanced understanding and technology than our own.

We would be mental midgets in their eyes but there would be no reason to worship them IMO.

 

[Thunderbird]

That was not your claim, nor what the link you provided was claiming. You said that the universe was fine-tuned for life.
It is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination is it fine-tuned for life.

Repeating your statement doesn't make it true. You don't seem to understand the concept.

Quote from my earlier link: The fine-tuning of the universe is seen most clearly in the values of the constants of nature. There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.4 Two of these in particular, the strong and electromagnetic forces, are responsible for the unusually efficient production of carbon, the element upon which all known life is based. The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe.

It the various constants were even slightly different, the universe would be barren of life. No life would be produced. You brought up the fact that some environments are challenging for life, but that is irrelevant.

A lot easier, but that is not the point. Is this a challenge for this child? Or is it an awful defect that no loving god would ever allow?

I know a lot of anti-Christian fanatics want to kill off such handicapped kids.

Abortion of Disabled Babies Increasing at an Alarming Rate

Leading atheist Peter Singer wants to kill them even after they are born! I think, however, with all their suffering, their lives are valuable, maybe even a blessing to those around them

Siblings of Special Needs Children The Unsung Heroes

Disabled children meet hero Johanna Benson - Travel News Namibia

I notice you ignored my questions: What is real? Is empirical evidence what is real? Is this because you can't answer them?

All you have to do is throw your hands up and declare "God did it",

Actually the fine-tuning argument is the opposite of a "God of the gaps" argument. God is not sprinkled on top of the universe, he's baked right in.

it is the rise of fundamentalist religious dogma that is killing science in the west.

Atheists have been as anti-science as anyone: Lysenkoism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Lazy system, as I said. it doesn't require you to think. In fact, it discourages independent thought.

Sounds like those closed-minded, misanthropic, petulant atheist adolescent boys you meet on the internet. They follow slavishly the fashion for atheism the media bosses try to create.

I'm not "some" atheist. I am an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural.

Earlier you described atheists in general.

Utter lack of evidence. Full Stop.

Why do you feel only empirical evidence counts?

I studied anthropology for four years, psychology for two years (including abnormal psychology - my girlfriend is a psychiatric nurse), and geology for five years.

This biographical deflection does not answer my questions: What is your evidence there is no such thing as the supernatural? Why do you believe in the materialist philosophy? Why do you feel empirical evidence describes reality?

I have read about hundreds of cultures and religious beliefs,

And you seem to despise them all.

and have seen more than a few up close and personal. I have studied this planet, and the life on it, including the prehistoric life in great detail. Nothing I have seen, heard, or read leads me to believe that any of this religious dogma is anything other than wishful thinking. And much of it is pure slight of hand and scams perpetrated on the weak and vulnerable. There are no ghosts. There are no fairies. There are no angels. There are no devils. There are no monsters under your bed. There are no gods. Every holy man is not holy. They are lying or deluded.

Wow, what ridiculous arrogance! lol You somehow know without evidence that all holy men in all the world's cultures are all wrong. Only Western white males who have been carefully indoctrinated in materialist philosophy could possibly be correct.

Please stop believing in superstitions, including the materialist superstition.

Look Who s Irrational Now - WSJ

You believe in one god. The Greeks believed in many gods. You are an atheist wrt to ancient Greek religion.

I think many of the world's spiritual traditions have something to offer.

 

[BluePhantom]

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

You you are willing to entertain the idea that Socrates existed and give it a "probably" degree of certainty. So you do believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably". Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'. This suggests a pretty strong anti-religious bias and yet another self-contradiction. That being, the belief in something is ok, at least to the degree of "probably", as long as it's not God. Thus, by speaking in absolutes, you imply that what is reasonable for others to believe in is dependent upon your personal definitions. This is incredibly narcissistic and egocentric. You clearly think a great deal about yourself.

That is a false equivalence IMO.

We have archaeological evidence for the existence of the ancient Greeks. We don't have evidence that states this was the tomb of Socrates and inside we find his bones. So it is fair to be skeptical that writings ascribed to him might have been penned by someone else. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the society in which Socrates lived most certainly existed. His writings are not the only evidence for the existence of that society.

Compare that to the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God outside of the writings of those who had a vested interest in convincing bronze age people that their religion had the one and only "true God". Self serving and self referencing documents with absolutely zero corroborating evidence is not a fair comparison to the one proposed above for the existence of Socrates.

I respectfully disagree. It's completely applicable. Plato had a vested interest in advancing a philosophy and avoiding persecution and possible death. It makes sense that he could have written his own philosophy and attributed it to Socrates in order to achieve both those goals. All we have to establish Socrates as a historical figure are the second-hand writings of a very few people, mostly Plato. Why is their testimony any more acceptable than the testimony of those who walked with Jesus? Now, keep in mind, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate, here. I imagine Socrates was a historical figure, but that creates no contradiction with me, because I allow for the belief in things for which there is no proof. Now I do say that one must distinguish between "facts" (regarding that which can be demonstrated or proven) and "beliefs" (regarding things which cannot be demonstrated or proven).

The problem Orogen advances is that he is attempting to establish his personal beliefs as facts and he does not seem to apply consistent criteria for what he accepts as probable and improbable . Yet, he is quick to point out to theists that since their beliefs lack evidence, they are nothing more than myth. Hence the contradiction in his positions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

You you are willing to entertain the idea that Socrates existed and give it a "probably" degree of certainty. So you do believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably". Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'. This suggests a pretty strong anti-religious bias and yet another self-contradiction. That being, the belief in something is ok, at least to the degree of "probably", as long as it's not God. Thus, by speaking in absolutes, you imply that what is reasonable for others to believe in is dependent upon your personal definitions. This is incredibly narcissistic and egocentric. You clearly think a great deal about yourself.

That is a false equivalence IMO.

We have archaeological evidence for the existence of the ancient Greeks. We don't have evidence that states this was the tomb of Socrates and inside we find his bones. So it is fair to be skeptical that writings ascribed to him might have been penned by someone else. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the society in which Socrates lived most certainly existed. His writings are not the only evidence for the existence of that society.

Compare that to the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God outside of the writings of those who had a vested interest in convincing bronze age people that their religion had the one and only "true God". Self serving and self referencing documents with absolutely zero corroborating evidence is not a fair comparison to the one proposed above for the existence of Socrates.

I respectfully disagree. It's completely applicable. Plato had a vested interest in advancing a philosophy and avoiding persecution and possible death. It makes sense that he could have written his own philosophy and attributed it to Socrates in order to achieve both those goals. All we have to establish Socrates as a historical figure are the second-hand writings of a very few people, mostly Plato. Why is their testimony any more acceptable than the testimony of those who walked with Jesus? Now, keep in mind, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate, here. I imagine Socrates was a historical figure, but that creates no contradiction with me, because I allow for the belief in things for which there is no proof. Now I do say that one must distinguish between "facts" (regarding that which can be demonstrated or proven) and "beliefs" (regarding things which cannot be demonstrated or proven).

The problem Orogen advances is that he is attempting to establish his personal beliefs as facts and he does not seem to apply consistent criteria for what he accepts as probable and improbable . Yet, he is quick to point out to theists that since their beliefs lack evidence, they are nothing more than myth. Hence the contradiction in his positions.

I respectfully disagree. There is no parallel between a "mythical Socrates" and a "mythical Jesus".

The former is portrayed as an ordinary man who had failings. His lessons were recorded by his direct followers and not embellished as "miracles" and no one tried to turn him into a martyr on which to found a religion.

The latter is claimed to be reincarnation of God himself in human form, given powers beyond that of mere mortals and is alleged to have been martyred in order to found a religion that worships a deity. Furthermore the myth of a "son of God" has existed in many other religions that predate Christianity.

So this is a comparison of apples and oranges and as such is not a valid foundation on which to challenge Oregonicman IMO.

 

[Thunderbird]

I suggest that you go back reread your own lies. In #150 you claimed that Galton was an Agnostic.

Actually I posted that the article said Galton was an agnostic. But, given your limitations, I don't expect you to understand.

And you are lying about not being a creationist too. Only creationists lie about Atheism being a "religion".

Silly.

Religion is defined as the belief in the existence of a deity.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief that any deity exists.

Check out some dictionaries and you'll find other definitions. So you are wrong. Again. Not that you have the character to admit it.

 

[BluePhantom]

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

Because it was a signal. It was measured. It may be something they haven't encountered before so they don't know what it was. And so they don't ascribe any particular conclusion to it because there is not enough data. It was a one-time event. Could have been an exploding magnetar for all they know. One thing is certain, scientists don't go ascribing mythologies to signals they can't identify. jokes, maybe, but never mythologies. I would be willing to bet that if they encounter another, similar signal, we now have the technology and the robustness of in systems now that they may be able to figure out what it was - if it happens again.

As you so frequently do, you again miss the point. Right now we can say it happened because we have evidence. When someone says "I don't believe the WOW Signal happened", we can throw them the audio, the paper readouts, and Jerry Ehman, who witnessed it, can talk to them and provide first-hand testimony. Currently, we have evidence to support the event. That evidence will not last forever. Ehman will die, if he hasn't already, eliminating first-hand testimony. The paper readout will eventually decay. The audio will eventually be destroyed in some way. At that point, there will be no physical evidence of the event. According to the standards you seem to be advancing, when that happens, the WOW signal must become myth as there will no longer be evidence to prove the event.

The probability is good that he existed. That is not a belief. That is an educated guess based on the fact that we have two authors who wrote about him, one of which claims to have been his best student. we know who these men are (unlike most of the men who wrote the Bible, who we don't know with any certainty at all).

Pfft. It's the exact same standard. You simply accept one and not the other based upon nothing more than what you personally choose to validate. We know a great deal about the Apostle Paul. We have letters that the vast majority of scholars accept that he wrote himself. We have many others, of course, that claim the be written by him but were not. Just because Plato claimed to be a student of Socrates doesn't mean he was. Polycarp claimed to be a student of Paul, but the dates ascribed to their lives make this extremely unlikely.

Jesus was this allegedly magical healer who walked on water, fed 5,000 people with a handful of bread and fish, and turned water into wine, according to people we know nothing about, and aren't even sure of the dates they wrote this stuff, but are certain it wasn't when he was alive. for all we know, they made it up. There are no corroborating documents to validate the originals. Yahweh burned bushes when he wanted to speak to men (something no one had seen before nor seen since outside of a mental institution).

And the difference between you and I is that I apply a more consistent standard. I concede that it is possible that the accounts of Jesus were completely made up. In fact, I tend to think most were. You, on the other hand, only appear to consider possibilities that support your position and prejudices. Anything else, you dismiss with absolute certainty. Not terribly scientific of you, I must say...but then again your self-contradictions are pretty well established by this point.