Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 5,651-5,700 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Science is never absolute, so you've gone wrong right from the beginning, every scientist knows that all knowledge is provisional, as it may turn out there's evidence to change what they currently ..."

Ops! still you have interpreted me in your sense. Now I am fade up with this all. I said 'my science' and now again I would have to write all this junk to tell you what 'my science' is. So please stop. Thank you!

[Hazel]

Vishal, its "fed up", assuming you mean you've had enough.

You don't get to have "your science", stop using words to mean something other than what they're supposed to mean. Unless you are experimenting, submitting papers, being peer reviewed and having your conclusions tested by others, then you're not doing science.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Vishal, its "fed up", assuming you mean you've had enough.

You don't get to have "your science", stop using words to mean something other than what they're supposed to mean. Unless you are experim..."

Thanks for English correction. And now please let people think what they are thinking. The thread was about a question of people's own choice and if there should be a discussion then this thread should be named something different. Now exactly I am fed up. And I don't have to apply anything what you think. I am now failure and you won. Thank you again.

[Hazel]

I haven't won anything, Vishal, this was a discussion, not a contest.

People can think what they want as far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't harm anyone with their beliefs etc, but that doesn't mean that if they then post what they think on a forum that others should just accept what they're saying without giving it thought and consideration, and evaluating it for its merits or lack thereof. If you don't want to discuss and possibly meet with criticism, then you're best off staying away from forum discussions, because your ideas and beliefs are not above evaluation and criticism.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I haven't won anything, Vishal, this was a discussion, not a contest.

People can think what they want as far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't harm anyone with their beliefs etc, but that do..."

Okay, I accept what are you saying from your view point. I will try next time that someone has given me a great suggestion and I will remember it. Now is it okay?

[Gary]

First, can we have patience with Vishal, if we were discussing in Hindi perhaps he would make more sense.

Vishal wrote: "One thing also Gary. You remember you have said reasoning can solve everything."

Actually that sounds like something I wouldn't say, it sounds dangerously like a belief and an absolute. Certainly in my opinion reasoning is a superior method than blind doctrine, but reasoning based on faulty premise is just as dangerous as unreasonable nonsense, or perhaps more so.

Vishal wrote: "You know when this word 'love' came in existence? When language came in existence."

No. Actually the word "love" came into existence with the advent of English, languages existed before this.

The logical fallacy that you are falling victim to is called "reification" it is when you take a label for something and consider it has independent existence because it has a name. "Cold" for example is an absence of heat, but people still think of cold as a force in itself. When people are burned by ice they think the cold of the Ice burned them, when in fact it was the flow of heat from our body to the cold that caused the burn so technically we burned ourselves. In the same way "death" is reified both as an event and a force. Yet a physician will tell you that it is quite hard to judge the precise moment that you can say a person has died. A person who's heart as stopped may have significant brain activity, while a person who is "brain dead" may live on for some time after the cessation of the conscious persona.

"Love" is a word that covers an entire complex set of relationships that humans have, yet people reify it by assuming it is one unifying mystical force. It isn't. Different types of love will come into conflict within a persons life, for an extreme example consider James Bond and the love of his country, his love for personal freedom and the love for his latest Bond girl. Each relationship is described as "love" but the details are quite different and specific to that relationship.

Vishal wrote: "Now science has found the answers of the mystery of this earth but what about the mystery which is in the head of human. It is too closed and you are not finding its mystery?"

Actually there is plenty of mystery, but we have also explained a lot of those mysteries and more are being explained every day.

Vishal wrote: "Find out exact explanation and then make any statement against anything."

Do you know every word in English? Because I don't. Yet that does not stop me from speaking or writing in the English language. Just because we do not know everything doesn't mean we cannot use what we do know effectively.

Vishal wrote: "Mean while I would like you to come near the word 'hate'."

Hate is not the opposite of love, as much as poets would like to believe. Most hatred is actually born of fear, fear of difference or fear of change. The effects are usually the opposite of love, but the causes are not.

Vishal wrote: "If something appear then it must be hidden somewhere other wise how it can come immediately."

Not true. Where you hidden inside your mother who was inside your grandmother, who was inside her mother etc.? No. Otherwise go back twenty generations and you great great great gransmother would have to be the size of a small moon just to contain all the levels of nested DNA.

When you were conceived your unique nature was not hidden, it was formed from a combination of DNA and a sequence of life events that has resulted in who you are now, and that person is ever changing with every memory you record, every mouthful you eat and every breath you take. Who you are wasn't hidden, who you are is something new and unique that is the result of a complex series of interactions.

Vishal wrote: "So this whole universe is an existence and everything which is natural is the part of this existence."

Yes, which is why the "supernatural" does not exist, because if it did it would be part of nature and therefore "natural".

Vishal wrote: "You have said 'reasoning and compassion can decide ethics and moral of human'."

Yes. For example, why is it immoral to kill someone? Is it just because religion says it is wrong? What about those religions that say killing certain people is OK?

Using ethics and reason, we know that the majority of us want to live and experience life, we also do not have any proof that death is not the complete cessation of that person. Therefore if we want to live it is logically wrong to have a society were killing is acceptable, otherwise we would likely be killed too. Also if there is no afterlife then killing is denying someone's continued existence and is therefore a terrible crime.

Almost all ethical laws can be examined using reason and a few parameters that we can arrive at based on our own desires and needs.

It worries me often that religious people tend to think that they would not be ethical if religion didn't tell them to be, how horrific are these people really?

Vishal wrote: "Every invention is made to make economy stronger."

Not really. Some inventions make the economy weaker, but are ethical. For example a drug that stops somebody seriously ill from dying could weaken the economy, because that person doesn't die and continues to need money to be spent on their care and the drug to keep them alive.

Vishal wrote: "Psychology is a subject and it has given two major words. 'Conscious' and 'Unconscious'. I just have to see whether you can accept these words. If you can, then later I will tell you what I am thinking about but I need first your explanation."

Actually no one can really define the difference between them. Experiments have shown that the truth is probably a lot more complex than those simplistic labels.

Vishal wrote: "Now you have found also a way to make division in the word love."

Ok if you do not understand why there is a difference between types of love then can you not see the difference between the kind of love you would feel for your brother, your mother, your daughter and your wife? If you don't then I worry for at least one of them.

Vishal wrote: "I don't need anything except the word love. If I would say you to explain the word apple, will you ask me first to tell which apple I am talking about."

Good example. If I said that "Apples are good to eat" then would you eat anything that is named "Apple"? Would you rip out someone's throat to eat the trachea which is often labelled in English the "Adam's Apple"? Would you try to eat an Apple iPad or iPhone?

"Love" is a label, a name, just because it is one word in English doesn't mean it is one singular thing.


Vishal wrote: "First explain the word 'love' with 'where', where it is in human mind,"

Most forms of love are associated with the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine from regions of the brain including the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. The hormone then effects receptors in various nerve cells that alter their behaviour according to the presence of this chemical.

Vishal wrote: "now 'why', why is comes in front, then"

Why is because it is an evolved trait that has allowed the development and maintenance of relationships of many levels, all based on the reward/learning response of human neurophysiology.

Interestingly enough damage to the areas that produce dopamine and effect emotions can damage the ability for someone to make relationships and even make quick decisions. This mechanism is also subverted by addictive things including direct stimulation by drugs or indirect stimulation by habitual activities.

Vishal wrote: "'how', how it travels from mind to the other human organs."

By the blood, the autonomic nerves respond to its presence by increased heart rate and other physiological responses. This effect is why people traditionally assumed that emotions were controlled by the heart and organs, but in fact the heart and organs are responding to chemical signals from the brain.

Next question.

Vishal wrote: "Now if you already found then what can I do. You have seven options."

Not really. With a nonsensical statement that contradicts itself within a single sentence there is only really one rational response. So you the choice is either be rational or say "banana".

Vishal wrote: "Have you felt any beauty in this poem? Many people who have read it, have felt enormous beauty and meaning."

People have felt beauty and meaning when staring at completely random shapes, for example, Rorschach diagrams, fractal generated images, random landscapes, even random paint squirted onto a canvas.

Just because people feel things does not mean that they exist in the medium. Just like when people meditate they look inwards and see things that are relevant to themselves. Two people can look at the same piece of art, listen to the same song and still come out with two completely different meanings based on their own culture, nature and background. This does not mean that there is necessarily anything there.

Paint a door bright red and a European may feel cautious opening it because red is our colour for danger, while someone from China may open it confidently because red is the colour of fortune. Which one is right? Both, because the colour has no meaning in itself, it is just what people read into it.

Vishal wrote: "But try hard and find out the beauty if only to know the words can bring any beauty."

Why is beauty relevant to the discussion at hand. Just because something is beautiful doesn't make it true or meaningful. The HIV virus is a beautiful shape of molecular efficiency and geometric symmetry, but the AIDS it causes is quite horrific to suffer. A Supernova is a beautiful new star in the sky when seen from afar, up close it could erase all life from a planet with seething radiation, yet even at it does it scatters the elements needed for new life even as it kills.

Life after death is a beautiful concept to those who fear death, and to those who have lost someone close, yet also means that our finite lifespan is insignificant compared to an eternity of life after death which can easily make people forget how precious this life is.

Vishal wrote: "Forgive me if I am saying something wrong because I carry negativity and forgive me if I am saying something right because I carry positivity. "

Saying something wrong is only negative if you refuse to accept that you could be, saying something right is only positive if you realise that right and wrong are relative, not absolute.

[Gary]

Anjali wrote: "this is a Forum for exchange of ideas right? ...Each to his own...."

Each to his own would preclude the exchange of ideas by that statements nature.

Anjali wrote: "which cannot be explained with logic ...."

I think that it probably could, whether you would like that explanation or accept it, or whether it would be right is another matter.

What most people seem to forget is that when they talk about "spirituality" or "religion" they are using logic to explain things, the devil - as they say
- is in the details. The premises and assumptions that the logic is applied to is the problem.

Anjali wrote: "nor can i deem it as a co-incidence ..."

That is a choice, but truth is not a choice.

Anjali wrote: "I am a very logic driven person ....but my spirituality is something which adds some profound sense of purpose to my goals and my deep belief which pulled me from depths of death... "

As I said, logic does not preclude belief, but logic is subject to "GIGO" whether you use a computer or not. If you make assumptions or hold beliefs and then apply logic to them you can still be entirely wrong.

For example, you used the term "Spirituality" as a personal quality. What do you mean by this? Normally it is used as a quality of believing in the existence of 'immaterial' things like souls, spirits or gods, and the assumption that this quality is superior.

I accept the existence of immaterial things because I know matter is not what people used to think it was, yet I also know that some things are conceptual rather than real. The process of rain only exists when there is liquid, heat and a cycle of evaporation and condensation. This does not mean that there is a ghostly concept of "rain" that floats about in a vacuum ready to be accessed when needed. So the same with the soul.

[Gary]

Vishal wrote: "If he started from somewhere then he must have started from a believe and then to find where it is true or not."

No, you start from a hypothesis. If you "believe" it then why would you test it?

Vishal wrote: "Because what you are trying to establish here is that talking about philosophy is rubbish."

No, but it can contain rubbish. Just as talking in a language may be sense or nonsense, depending on what is said.

Vishal wrote: "You say don't believe on this rubbish but then why not make clarifications about your thoughts from where a man should to start seeking truth."

Easy, stop believing. Realise that each hypothesis is a model for what is happening, not a real thing in itself. Do not look within yourself for answers because within yourself is only you, you need to actually look at the world around you to understand the world around you.

Vishal wrote: "Question is just when reality happens. Is it happens in a peaceful mind or in a chaos?"

Or perhaps reality doesn't need a mind, but minds need reality.

Vishal wrote: "East is also trying to find out but what here you represent is that east has nothing. Now are you trying to say before west enters in east, people in east were living in miserable, poverty stricken conditions? "

That depends on whether you are claiming that the only thing the East has to offer is Mysticism.

[[deleted user]]

I don't pretend to understand Hindu philosophy or everything Vishal has written. However, when I was reading the back and forth from yesterday and today, Vishal's words and numerous people, basically, telling him he made no sense and either needed to shut up or make sense else they wouldn't converse with him, I was reminded of something. (Well, I was actually reminded of a lot of things, but I'll focus on this one particular connection.)

As I've mentioned before, I'm reading, here and there, The Case for God. It was suggested by a man of the sciences, I think, who participated in this thread a few months back. The author goes into the history of religion, etc.... At one point, she says, when talking about the teachings of Upanishadic sages,

"Authentic religious discourse could not lead to clear, distinct, and empirically verified truth. Like the Brahman, the atman was 'ungraspable.' You could define something only when you saw it as separate from yourself. But 'when the Whole [Brahman] has become a person's very self, then who is there for him to see and by what means? Who is there for me to think of and by what means?' But if you learned to 'realize' the truth that your most authentic 'Self' was identical with Brahman, you understood that it too was 'beyond hunger and thirst, sorrow and delusion, old age and death.' You could not achieve this insight by rational logic. You had to acquire the knack of thinking outside the ordinary 'lowercase' self, and like any craft or skill, this required long, hard, dedicated practice.' (21)

Bits and pieces of Vishal's posts reminded me of this .... Do bits and pieces of Vishal's posts remind anyone else of this?

Some of us are religious. Some of us are spiritual. Some of us are atheists. Some of us were raised within Western culture and society. Some weren't. Some are English speakers. Some aren't.

I don't know the truth of the situation. Perhaps Vishal is a troll, as defined by those who are sophisticated when it comes to all things Internet and social media. But, perhaps, he's coming at things from a different perspective.

[Hazel]

Shannon, I don't know if you spotted it in the pile of posts, but I put a picture up for you :D

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, I don't know if you spotted it in the pile of posts, but I put a picture up for you :D"

Yes, I'm still in mourning over it .... All those arrows must have hurt horribly.

[Luis]

We've lived in a world without science. It's called the Dark Ages. A religion-domiated world brought misery, and death for untold millions of people. More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion. Science on the other hand has been with us every step of the way up our evolutionary ladder.

It is science that helped primitve man develope tools, conquer fire, etc. It is science that has brought about all great leaps in human progress. It is science that has brought medical inovations that have saved countless lives- the irony being that it is God who is thanked afterward. It is science that allows us to communicate via internet, telephone, television, or even the microphones and PA systems used by megachurches which in turn denounce science.

A world without science is a world condemned to slavery. A world where free thought is evil, and shunned

A world without religion is free to not only dream, but to explore, and grow. It is a world where the pursuit of knowledge is encouraged and rewarded.

The truth is that a world without science is impossible, while a word without religion is not only possible but has happened in our past. It is not until religion was introduced and eventually took over that our steady progress found it's first road blocks.

[[deleted user]]

Luis wrote: "More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion."

Is that accurate? Unless, when you speak of primitive man living for ages without religion, you mean the organized religions we recognize today, I fear most historians would disagree with you, Luis.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Luis wrote: "More to the point- primitive man live for ages without religion."

Is that accurate? Unless, when you speak of primitive man living for ages without religion, you mean the organized r..."

primitive man lived without christianity or nearly all of what we would think of as organized religion, but they had a version of it, what the big game hunters in old 40's movies would call 'native superstition'.
which is basically what religion is: native superstition gone global.

[Maria]

Anjali wrote: "Maria wrote: "Vishal - go away! Many words do not a genius make -especially when they make NO sense. Bye, Vishal!"

You CANNOT ask someone to go away because you do not understand his/her philoso..."

Can, and did.

[Maria]

Hazel wrote: "Anjali wrote: "Maria wrote: "Vishal - go away! Many words do not a genius make -especially when they make NO sense. Bye, Vishal!"

You CANNOT ask someone to go away because you do not understand ..."

Thanks, Hazel. I used to read this forum and participate on a daily basis, I found it extremely interesting with lots of different opinions and ideas. While I still think that's true, I think that Vishal has sort of taken over with long "obtuse" posts, that, quite frankly, I don't have the patience to plow through. So, yes, maybe I shouldn't have said go away - but I am going to skim over his posts from now on. They make my brain hurt trying to figure out what he's talking about.

[Maria]

Shanna wrote: "Are you seriously comparing an online conversation with "the Nazi final solution"? I'm questioning your grasp on reality now..."

Seriously. I think this has gone on WAY long enough. I can't be the only one here who thinks so.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "primitive man lived without christianity or nearly all of what we would think of as organized religion, but they had a version of it, what the big game hunters in old 40's movies would call 'native superstition'.
which is basically what religion is: native superstition gone global. "

Travis.... Did you really think I saw primitive man taking communion and saying, "By the stripes of Christ!" while painting in Lascaux?

;)

In truth, we don't know a whole lot about the religious/spiritual beliefs of the people of pre-history. I suppose we could label it superstition. However, given our limited knowledge, I hesitate. We know they painted incredible paintings in caves. Some could argue they were just artistic, I suppose. Given the times and the fact that it was such a struggle to survive on a day-to-day basis, I (as do most historians, I think) find it hard to believe they painted in those caves for the sake of artistic expression. We presume they did so in order to "draw" those animals to the hunt ... in order to survive. If that's accurate, would it have been superstitious. (I seem to recall seeing an author on Oprah saying we should have a bulletin board with pictures of all the things we wanted ... and if we did ... those things would come into our lives. The power of positive thinking and intention. Hmmm.... To think he and Oprah thought they were on to something new!) We know they carved all sorts of little pregnant women, little in height not protruding breasts and bellies. We make assumptions about their intent. Superstition or no? And, we find burials of people from pre-history, with food and tools and weapons, which tend to suggest a belief in an afterlife. Again, superstition or no?

Ultimately, it depends on point of view, perspective, given the fact that we have the dots and, likely, can connect them ... but aren't positive we can connect them in order to form the intended picture.

Christianity didn't exist, no. But, evidence does exist that leads us to conclude that our ancestors, even our ancestors of pre-history, were spiritual people. I say spiritual. You say superstitious. Ultimately, again, it comes down to how we see things.

I'd not; however, as an argument against a human need for religion, say primitive man lived without it for years and years, so ....

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Are you seriously comparing an online conversation with "the Nazi final solution"? I'm questioning your grasp on reality now..."

Seriously. I think this has gone on WAY long enough..."

Please read message 5805, if you haven't. I'd be curious as to your thoughts.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "primitive man lived without christianity or nearly all of what we would think of as organized religion, but they had a version of it, what the big game hunters in old 40's movies wou..."

Not trying to single out anybody, went for shorthand rather than list every religion or have somebody jump in with 'Oh yeah, we'll what about...?' and my point came out a bit muddled.
posting pre-coffee never works out for me.

My point was that what cave men had was religion, but most likely not in a form that people today would recognize as organized religion in most any form.
It would have been basically what we today call superstition.

[Maria]

Shannon wrote: "Maria wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Are you seriously comparing an online conversation with "the Nazi final solution"? I'm questioning your grasp on reality now..."

Seriously. I think this has gone on W..."

I read it, Shannon, and I somewhat agree. There is the language barrier, which I understand, and there are differing points of view. It just seems as though Vishal is reacting in a strange way to some of your comments. You, Gary, Hazel, all have been trying to discuss things with him and he comes out of nowhere with answers and comments that don't address the issue. Also, he seems a bit self-deprecating, saying,"I am a failure, you have won" etc. So that someone will say, "Oh, no, Vishal, you are not, we love you, etc" I've always been turned off by this type of passive-aggressive behavior, I think more so in a forum like this than in "real life". Most of you know me from previous posts, and know that I mean no harm. It just seemed like he was clogging up the discussion with things that, while he felt the need to say them, just didn't apply to the discussion at hand.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "he comes out of nowhere with answers and comments that don't address the issue. Also, he seems a bit self-deprecating, saying, "I am a failure, you have won" etc. So that someone will say, "Oh, no, Vishal, you are not, we love you, etc"

Hmmm....

I can't speak to Vishal's intent. I've not asked him his purpose here or for clarifications regarding his statements. Perhaps, if you explained your feelings and asked him questions about why he answers the way he does, he'd explain. I don't know. Truly.

I can say it might not be as it seems. Again, it might be about perception ... that goes beyond a language barrier.

Some of his answers and comments might seem off topic to us. However, if we were raised in India, more specifically, by Hindus, they might not be off topic at all. We might realize he's bringing philosophical threads to the discussion, threads that we'd be aware of if we were brought up seeing them woven our entire lives.

Regarding his comments that you view as self-depricating and, perhaps, needy .... Again, perception comes into play. When I read that sentence, I didn't think it was a grasping attempt at people's denial and acceptance. I actually thought it was his attempt to point out that people were treating him like he was a failure, not even worth dialoging with. That was my first perception. Then, remembering some of the things I'd read in the book I mentioned about Hindu philosopy, I wondered if that statement and the statements in which he thanked people for pointing out his mistakes and telling him he made no sense was a way of practicing the ideals set out in Hindu philosophy. Again, as I said, I know very, very little about Hinduism, so I've really no idea. But, I'm guessing, if you read the book I'm reading or read something else about Hinduism, your view of these exchanges might be very different.

When talking with people of other cultures, religious/spiritual upbringings, and languages, it might be wise to practice even more patience than normal. He might not be trying to "clog up" the discussion. He might actually be on point; it just might not be a point we recognize.

Again, though, perhaps you'd like to start a conversation with him, in order to try to get to know him and understand him and his point of view.

[Drew]

Anjali wrote: "@ Hazel How much do you really know of the hindu Philosophy to say that its is intellectually dishonest .. or are you trying to say it is his interpretation you disagree with ...this is a Forum for..."

Yes they can be explained, you got lucky, there was no god behind it. That kills me when people say, I was saved by god, yet what about innocent women and children that get killed by bombings or mass slayings, where is your god then? Oh, he's just collecting his sheep huh, what a load of crap.

[[deleted user]]

Drew wrote: "Oh, he's just collecting his sheep huh, what a load of crap."

I think the idea that God collects his sheep might be a Christian belief vs. part of Hindu philosophy ....

I mention that since you're responding to Anjali, who mentioned being saved from the depths, if I remember correctly, but who is, I think, Hindu.

[Drew]

Shannon wrote: "Drew wrote: "Oh, he's just collecting his sheep huh, what a load of crap."

I think the idea that God collects his sheep might be a Christian belief vs. part of Hindu philosophy ....

I mention tha..."

It really doesn't matter Shannon, the idea that god would save one person who may or may not be a good person and not save hundreds or thousands of people who may or may not be good is just garbage, but that is what these crazy people believe and it just furthers my thoughts that I'm right about religion in general.

[Maria]

I guess the reverse would be killing a large number of innocent people just to teach their nation a lesson, i.e. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lots of innocent people,children included, were killed who had nothing to do with the war, just as supposedly lots of innocent people died in the flood of Noah's day, just to teach the people back then a lesson. How many people, who may or may not have been good were killed in both of those examples?

[Drew]

Maria wrote: "I guess the reverse would be killing a large number of innocent people just to teach their nation a lesson, i.e. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lots of innocent people,children included, w..."

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this.

[Maria]

Not really going anywhere, your comment about god saving one person while letting many innocents die made me think of the reverse, the fact that sometimes powers that be allow lots of innocents to die during war time as a means to their winning the war and killing the "enemy". It may not really be relevant, but the Bible is full of the same thing, god killing lots of innocents to get rid of a few bad people, or to allow nations that did not believe in him to see his mightiness. Example, the plagues of Egypt with the first born sons being killed. The babies were innocent.

[[deleted user]]

I, for one, would be interested in the ideas promoted by another culture and faith. We're coming at this stuff from a VERY Western/Christian bias. Sheep. The Bible. The exodus, which brings in Judaism.

In Hindu philosophy, why do people suffer? Why do innocents suffer and die? Why are some saved by their beliefs and reliance on the same ... while others die?

We may or may not be surprised by the answers to those questions. I'm not convinced that we can view all religions through a Judeo/Christian and/or atheist lense and know what we're truly seeing.

Some Hindus from India have attempted to take part in this thread over the last few months. If they're still reading these posts, I'd truly be interested in their answers. I have no desire to judge; I want to understand.

[Drew]

I enjoy other cultures, but I take no interest in religion of any kind and really wish people would use that tool between their ears to realize how ignorant the idea of a god or many gods is.

[Maria]

I don't think it's ignorance - some people truly find it hard to believe that the universe, all the animals, majestic mountains, etc etc got here by themselves. It's like if you see a beautiful mansion on a hill, would you say "wow that must have just popped up there by itself one day, or maybe it evolved from an old abandoned shack over the last million years". No, you'd say "wow, I wonder who created that beautiful mansion?!". Same line of thinking.

[Drew]

Who said they got here by themselves, I didn't, I just don't think a magic sky fairy created it all.

There are many arguments advanced by Christians that attempt to infer a God's existence by the alleged evidences of intelligent design in nature. All are deeply flawed in that they commit the fallacy of first presupposing design in order to prove a designer, putting the cart before the horse.

One of the most popular of these is the watchmaker argument, first advanced by theologian William Paley in 1802. Basically it goes like this. If you're walking through the forest/along a beach/wherever, and you see a watch lying on the ground, you could pick it up and tell just by looking at it that the watch could not have just materialized there out of nothingness for no reason at all. Clearly this is a highly intricate piece of machinery, deliberately created and manufactured for a purpose. From here, the argument points out that since organisms in nature exhibit just as much complexity in their makeup as this watch, it is reasonable to assume that nature is the work of deliberate design too.

And this is the first and most obvious problem with the watchmaker argument: it is nothing more than an assumption, based upon an appearance of order. The appearance of order in nature is not alone sufficient justification for assuming that this order is the result of purposeful, intelligent design by a supernatural - trees providing oxygen etc.- but most of the sciences have shown us that there are practical, mechanistic explanations for how and why things work in nature the way they do. In order to mount a convincing argument that things in nature require a Divine Creator to explain them, Christians must first demonstrate that it is impossible to explain them in any other way, and such design arguments as the watchmaker argument fail to do this.

Viewed another way, the structure of the watchmaker argument is self-refuting. The hypothetical person noticing the hypothetical watch on the hypothetical beach thinks it looks designed...but compared to what? In order for one to recognize design, one must have a concept of non-design as a frame of reference to work from. So if the watch looks designed compared to its natural surroundings, then that clearly implies those natural surroundings were not, in fact, designed, though they may exhibit the appearance of order.

Even if one were, for the sake of discussion, to take the watchmaker argument seriously, it would still not be a strong argument that the designer inferred by the comparison of watch-to-nature bears any resemblance to the Christian God. For one thing, no watch is made by a single person these days; they are usually made by factories employing thousands of workers. And the factories that make watches are not the same factories that make chairs, Styrofoam cups, computers, or Winnebagos. So why assume that nature, with all its dazzling variety, must be the work of only one designer? At best, the watchmaker argument can be said to be an argument for polytheism, or a highly clever and advanced race of aliens who have figured out how to make solar systems and planets.

Still another refutation along these lines is that watches do evolve. The modern digital watch was not dreamed up in every detail by anyone in the modern day. It evolved from older watches, which evolved from analog watches, which evolved from hourglasses, sundials and other time-keeping methods. Each step in the "evolution" of the watch was achieved by people thinking about older designs and coming up with new ways to improve them. So if the analogy is going to work, it's going to have to allow at minimum for God experimenting and modifying his design through an evolutionary process and selection. This is important when you consider that many creationists try to use this argument to refute evolution.

Finally, it can be pointed out that Christians who argue from design take a highly selective view of nature. They don't understand why I'm not convinced of God's existence because of "all the beauty" in nature. Now while things like butterflies, waterfalls, and sunsets are indeed beautiful; other things like earthquakes, cancer and the Ebola virus are not. "Beauty" is a human concept that individuals apply subjectively to things we observe. One must wonder why the loving God of Christianity would consider it "beautiful" to set nature up so that animals in the wild had to massacre one another to survive. Surely God would not take pleasure in the death agonies of a gazelle having its throat torn away by a ravenous cheetah...would He? If God is such an "intelligent designer," why couldn't He have created "meat trees," so that the carnivores could pluck their meals every night and leave the gentle herbivores alone?

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I guess the reverse would be killing a large number of innocent people just to teach their nation a lesson, i.e. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lots of innocent people,children included, w..."


A plane crash kills 128 people and one survives and people go 'It's a miracle!'.
Yeah, I'm sure the families of those 128 dead people saying that.

Or maybe god has bad aim and screwed up on a possible no hitter game.

[Travis]

Drew wrote: "Who said they got here by themselves, I didn't, I just don't think a magic sky fairy created it all.

There are many arguments advanced by Christians that attempt to infer a God's existence by the..."

Now all can think about is how much I want a meat tree. I bet they taste like chicken.

[Drew]

Travis wrote: "Drew wrote: "Who said they got here by themselves, I didn't, I just don't think a magic sky fairy created it all.

There are many arguments advanced by Christians that attempt to infer a God's exi..."

I'm hoping for pork

[Drew]

Travis wrote: "Maria wrote: "I guess the reverse would be killing a large number of innocent people just to teach their nation a lesson, i.e. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lots of innocent people,childr..."

Lol, good one.

[Pat]

Heather wrote: "I know this may seem a bit weird, but I believe that science and religion go have in hand. In my mind, science explains religion and they together form societal networks. It is when you get extremi..."

[Pat]

Science without religion is lame;
Religion without science is blind. ~ Albert Einstein
Nice sentiment but I would change Religion to Faith since religion is at the heart of all wars.

[Pat]

I think too many people are equating religion and faith. Religions were started to control people into believing what leaders wanted. More people die in the name of their "religion" than anything else.
Faith on the other hand, is a deep connection to a greater power. Faith and religion are two different things.
Science doesn't expect you to follow blindly. It tries explaining the unexplainable.

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "Now all can think about is how much I want a meat tree. I bet they taste like chicken."

Watch out, its a hambush!!!

[Drew]

I knew you guys would love my "meat tree" analogy, lol.

[Shanna]

Maria wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Are you seriously comparing an online conversation with "the Nazi final solution"? I'm questioning your grasp on reality now..."

Seriously. I think this has gone on WAY long enough..."

Not quite sure what you mean.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Travis wrote: "Now all can think about is how much I want a meat tree. I bet they taste like chicken."

Watch out, its a hambush!!!"

gives a whole new meaning to spam attack..

[[deleted user]]

Now I am concluding my whole comments in this last one and will try to give some sense what I was talking about.
Nature needs balance and if anyhow this balance becomes unbalanced then Nature balances itself. Our body has two aspects, inner and outer. You are not understanding me because you were trying to see me from outer aspect but my whole mind has grown in east which is rejecting outer and this is why they are in pain. Body needs both, inner satisfaction and outer satisfaction. If there is lacking of one then it would be unbalanced.
In my daily life I can see how without technology life would be totally difficult but when someone so closed to my heart died, nothing was outside to make me rid of this inner anguish, inner pain. Then Buddha's words, Jesus's words, Krishna's words became the words of my own inner world. These people, Jesus, Mosses, Buddha, Krishna, Mahavira, all have gone deep down in the human mind, deep down in inner core and their words are much valuable and worthy enough to preserve. And if you go in them, you will see they are persons of balance. In their whole life they have been following this balance of outer and inner. Hindus say 'Aham Brahmasmi', I am God. This God is a balance of inner and outer. Scientists are really close to the dark matter, I have got what they call 'god particle'. This would write a new chapter in Human existence that how human is capable to solve mysteries. And outer will be changed, but what about the human's inner part. Will human change from inside. This inside will always seek something. One go deep down outside then inside will be missed and one go deep down inside and outside will be missed. This reality is all around. We have destroyed innumerable trees, we have polluted the air and now nature is balancing. Just simply doing a balance. Glaciers are melting. This existence does not recognize us as superior beings. This is what we have developed for ourselves. It just sees us the part of existence. It makes balance between living and non-living, between plants and animals, between animals and animals. Inside a cell, there are non-living materials and from these a living being is created. A perfect balance. All is hidden in some form. Fruit is coming out and then seeds, then again the seeds. One seed has all hidden characters. It needs just place and environment and it will grow. Two cells merging together and creating a new child. This is beauty of nature. A perfect balance. The seed of creating a new being is hidden. It needs two poles and then balance is done. Yin and Yang. Balanced like a Samurai's Sword.
I found here very few people who can understand the person whose whole upbringing has done in east among the philosophies. You say language is a barrier and I accept it from my core of heart but if you talk English with a Chinese then Chinese will talk English in his own mind's position. It would be hard if you do say all the time there is language barrier but it is only one aspect, another is that you have to make out what he is saying. But I have seen people are more interested in scrutinizing the language. Focusing on every words. I can understand you because you are trying to see from above level but what I am saying is from very low level. I read someone has written Einstein's quotation but from where Einstein is saying very few will go. He is simply saying about this balance. Shannon has really found something essential that is very true way to see the persons of different kind of nationalities.
I am deeply thankful to people here who have really made me to come near my own mind. To participate in this forum I have really got something that is valuable for a non-native English speaker. This was my first online forum where I have participated. So please forgive me if I am wrong because I carry negativity and forgive me if I am right also because I carry positivity along with me.

[Drew]

Vishnal, you just don't get it, there is no God, Krishna, etc. I can't tell you to stop spewing your garbage but I really wish you would.

[Blou4432]

Drew wrote: "Vishnal, you just don't get it, there is no God, Krishna, etc. I can't tell you to stop spewing your garbage but I really wish you would."

Actually, Drew, Vishnal makes perfect sense...if you know a darn thing about his religion. This post has been fantastic to read, but all this back and forth about not understanding. Pick up a non fiction book once in awhile. I do not share Vishnal's beliefs, but I understand perfectly what he is saying. I don't usually get into religious discussions because I took the time to learn other people's beliefs and, while I may not agree, I can understand where they are coming from. Before you can build a good argument or truly believe in something, you must be able to see all sides of the issue. If you cannot play devil's advocate with yourself, how are you supposed to argue a valid point? It's much like driving blind. As far as the original thread. Religion and science go hand in hand. You truly could not have one without the other. Some people must have someone/something to control their lives to keep their morality in check. Others need freedom to discover what that morality means.

[Blou4432]

Vishal wrote: "Now I am concluding my whole comments in this last one and will try to give some sense what I was talking about.
Nature needs balance and if anyhow this balance becomes unbalanced then Nature balan..."

You are almost a perfect example of your own beliefs in your writing. I don't share the same beliefs, but no matter what anyone else says, you express your beliefs beautifully and perfectly for someone who understands what you believe.

[Drew]

Blou, I don't need to learn a point of view that I know is illogical and flawed. I'm not saying Vishnal is a bad person or that he is stupid, just ignorant to believe the way he does as I believe you are ignorant for saying he makes perfect sense.

[Blou4432]

Drew wrote: "Blou, I don't need to learn a point of view that I know is illogical and flawed. I'm not saying Vishnal is a bad person or that he is stupid, just ignorant to believe the way he does as I believe y..."

For his religion, he does make perfect sense. You stating that his belief is in FACT illogical and flawed in itself is ignorant. You are saying he is ignorant because he believes the way he does and not the way you do. Aren't you sort of contradicting yourself?

[[deleted user]]

Vishal and Blou --

I don't think you're ignorant.