Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,101-3,150 of 12,463

[Sim]

Ditto Gary and Hazel!!

[Hazel]

Thanks for the birthday wishes.

Shanna and Travis, Shannon has stated several times, and in a long conversation she had with me some time ago, that the bible is the work of men, and not god, which I assumed means she doesn't think it is divinely inspired (correct me if I'm wrong, Shannon). Thus her cherry picking is much the same as ours, we like the good advice in the bible too, and reject the rest, because its not of divine origin. The argument that someone shouldn't pick and chose which bits of the bible to believe only really applies to those people who claim that the book is of divine origin, as if its the word of god then all of it applies, if you consider god to be the ultimate authority.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Thanks for the birthday wishes.

Shanna and Travis, Shannon has stated several times, and in a long conversation she had with me some time ago, that the bible is the work of men, and not god, which..."

You are correct, Hazel.

And, I'm pretty sure I had a dream last night in which Sean Bean wished you a happy birthday.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Thanks for the birthday wishes.

Shanna and Travis, Shannon has stated several times, and in a long conversation she had with me some time ago, that the bible is the work of men, and not god, which..."

I understand that's Shannon's point of view. I wasn't directing that comment at her. Just a general statement about cherry picking . I understand Shannon's faith is, I dunno, more.... spiritual than traditionally religious, am I right or did I get that wrong Shannon?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Hey, Gary. At the outset, I need to say I'm absolutely exhausted today and am afraid I might be missing some of your finer points. However, given the time you put into your response, I did want to get back to you. :)"

Thank you, most appreciated :-)

Shannon wrote: "In my mind, the religion did not create that. Did religion condone it and perpetrate it? Yes. But, it didn't create them."

Agreed, but today people condemn homosexuals, belittle women, try to twist science and try to escalate their own sense of ethics, all based on the idea that it's not their own prejudices they are proclaiming, it is legitimised by the bible.

Religion does not create these evils, it perpetuates and excuses them. What is worse is that moderate theists end up defending extremists and creating an atmosphere that tolerates extremist belief. When extremist Christians in Africa are murdering people in the attempt to establish a fundamentalist Christian state, or when Muslims are detonating themselves to kill the unbeliever, the moderate theists never challenge the ideology that led them to these actions, they instead blame the individual for somehow "getting it wrong". If scripture is the source of morality and truth then how can people "get it wrong" and commit these acts.

Would every Christian reading this condone the stoning to death of rape victims? Or the execution of homosexuals for loving each other (especially when Christians commonly proclaim "God is love"). Would they instead try to find a way to make scripture fit with their current idea of ethics?

Shannon wrote: "So, when I read the Bible, I'm applying knowledge of history in addition to my own ethics. That's why I say it's not as simple as my just applying my ethical standards."

This omits the source of the 'superior' ethics to the bible by which standards you are judging it by. (Don't get me wrong, I imagine most members of modern mostly secular societies have inherently superior ethics to biblical ones).

History only tells you what happened, it does not inform ethics except to see the effects. For example, modern secular society condemns slavery as 'obviously' unethical. However, in Roman times slavery was almost the equivalent of the first welfare system. If you were poor, you could sell yourself into slavery and have a reasonable expectation to be put to work, fed, housed and eventually you or your children may earn their freedom. However, the poor plebians were free. Free to starve.

I am not condoning slavery in general, but as you have said the context is important. What is that context? It is certainly not biblical in origin. Instead it is the modern day recognition that what we all want is dignity and respect, and the only way we can live in a society were we receive that is to give it ourselves in this society. That is a logical and humanistic basis for ethics. Ironically reflected in Jesus' words "Do unto others".

Shannon wrote: "Slavery was slavery was slavery. Not invented by religion. Accepted by cultures throughout the ancient world and, horrifyingly, into the modern world and, worse, to this day in some places. I'd say that likely came before religion. But, that's a guess on my part. It's, frankly, quite easy to look at that and say ... that's not of God ... that's a product of the times. Might my ethics come into play, too? Maybe. But, when dealing with that example, I think it has more to do with history.

Your ethics (and that derived from the society around you) is the only thing that can come into play.

If people spent a little less time bemoaning the sins of ourselves and others, and instead show each other respect, perhaps society would improve even more.

Shannon wrote: "many atheists would have believers think and question their beliefs ... and, through that, realize that God doesn't exist."

Not exactly, it's the questioning of beliefs, and the continuing to question them that is the thing people should aspire to. Then the existence of things becomes very much a moot point. A belief God doesn't exist is still a belief, a lack of belief in God, Zeus, Isis etc. is the point, which allows us to open our minds for what we learn about the universe today, and more importantly tomorrow.

It is ok not to know things yet!

Many people say "science doesn't know all the answers", to which I reply "yet" and of course "at least science does not have the arrogance to assume it knows the answers yet."

Shannon wrote: "Some atheists would have me question whether or not there's proof of God's existence, etc..., but wouldn't have me question which parts of the Bible have to do with societal mores at the time versus something else. It just seems odd to me."

Not really. You see the latter is largely irrelevant unless you do 'believe' in the bible. The bible can be cherry picked for inspirational stories. So can 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Star Wars'. The point is if you believe that the bible is directly or indirectly divine, then you are consciously suspending your ethical intuition partially or wholly. This is what has caused a lot of problems. Whether it is modern politicians condemning the gay community, or treating women as inferior, or it is the confederates showing biblical support for slavery, or historical europe condemning Jews for rejecting Jesus as the prophecised Messiah.

Shannon wrote: "To have an atheist say something like ... if you're going to believe, you have to believe everything ... shocks me. Really? Is the pope saying that? Or, is an atheist saying that? Both have said that. I find that hard to wrap my brain around. And, it doesn't seem to me, in that instance, that either the pope or the atheist is supporting independent thought ... at least with regard deciding what parts of the Bible a person accepts as spiritual truths."

But that's the point. If you turn around and say "the story of Jesus helping the woman about to be stoned" is divinely inspired because it is in the bible and appeals to you, then you are implicitly supporting the person who reads the same bible and justifies the murdering of a gay man, or enslaving someone from a neighbouring country, or giving ones daughters up to be raped, or murdering a woman who was raped and didn't scream loud enough.

The problem is that if you cherry pick, and still attempt to claim divine purpose, then effectively you are proclaiming yourself as a de facto divine prophet.

But if you read the same story and say "hey don't you think that was nice, saving the woman"? You need not believe in god, nor believe those words are divinely guided to agree.

[Hazel]

just a small point Gary,

the moderate theists never challenge the ideology that led them to these actions

this statement is not really true. For example, in the eastern muslim countries, where extremists are murdering christians, and burning down churches, there are some Imams who have spoken out against that behaviour... however, they then tend to end up on the hit list of the extremists as well.

[Gary]

Cllementine wrote: ":D I guess Travis no man is just one thing. We are all made of opposites 'n' spend time trying to balance it."

The theory of opposites is an old magical theory but it does not really work, except ironically in supersymmetric theory, which may or may not be a good theory of the universe, but has little to do with mystical parts.

Cllementine wrote: "You obviosly support theory of an undetermined universe and I respect that. "

To Einstein's chagrin, there does seem to be more proofs that the universe is non-deterministic rather than deterministic. Of course that only really matters if you try to base your understanding outside of your own prejudices and ego.

Cllementine wrote: "So we are the opposites. Like matter and antimatter.
One more great exp of the things that we don't see, but strugle to prove it's existance.. ;)"

Actually antimatter is pretty easy to prove the existence of. We don't need to see it but its effects are there to be seen.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Thats what it is speculation, but if have have evidence what is it."

Well the main evidence would be the lack of evidence that countries with more religious influence have more moral societies.

Even in the US the more religious states of the bible belt have greater levels of teen pregnancy and violence by population. If your hypothesis was correct then there should be a substantial lack of each.

cs wrote: "Thats what it is speculation, but if have have evidence what is it."If religion ended today the world would have had the benefit of having had religion and it's morals from the past 2000 years. If there never was religion then I also would speculate and say we would be living in a fittest survives society with much less if any morals."

I asked "what pluses from religion" and you have answered with only one thing "morals" and again you just presuppose that religion = morals. There is a lot of the bible I find blatantly immoral. In fact the majority of it.

cs wrote: "Maybe, but it is better than having no imagination or answers."

Interesting that you claim religion as being the realm of the imagination.

No. It's not better in any case. If you were on trial for a murder you didn't commit, would you want any answer (risking the wrong one), or would you rather have the search for truth?

cs wrote: "You are seeing a wood, I am seeing the trees."

No I am seeing what I am seeing. You are assuming it is trees because that is what you imagine it to be, because trees are comforting and familiar, while the idea of the unknown I could be looking at is terrifying.

"Man's strongest emotion has been fear, the greatest fear is the fear of the unknown", H P Lovecraft.

[Travis]

Think I'm going to let Gary cover this thread and go catch up on my reading.
He seems to be saying all the stuff I'm thinking, but saying it better.

Shannon: sorry, not all my bible/moral comments were directly meant for you. There were general thoughts that tended to flow over.
Too many people on this thread for me to keep straight and my thoughts go all over the place.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "I understand Shannon's faith is, I dunno, more.... spiritual than traditionally religious, am I right or did I get that wrong Shannon? "

You're right.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "The problem is that if you cherry pick, and still attempt to claim divine purpose, then effectively you are proclaiming yourself as a de facto divine prophet."

This truly might be semantics, but ....

In my mind, a prophet is a person who proclaims certain things, preaches certain things, tries to teach people certain things, tries to get people to follow his/her teachings, etc.... In fact, one might even go so far as to say that a prophet teaches one doctrine over another, insisting that s/he is right and has THE answer.

While I "cherry pick" ... I hate that phrase, I am not a prophet. While I take part in this discussion, I don't stand on the street corner doing the above. And, even though I take part in this discussion, I don't claim to have THE answer. Further, I support all people's beliefs. A belief in Yahweh. Jesus. Thor. Shiva. And, I support atheists. Not only do I support those people within this thread, I support them in real life and always have. So, am I a self-proclaimed de facto divine prophet? No.

I would say I have a personal relationship with God. By believing as I do, based on my personal experiences and certain teachings in the Bible, I've developed my own, hmmm, understanding of God.

You could say I'm splitting hairs here, but .... Since I don't proclaim my beliefs are right and am open to people finding their own spiritual path ... or not ..., I don't believe I'm adopting the role of prophet.

[Hazel]

Shannon, don't take this as a dig, as its not meant as one, just some comic relief, but whenever someone claims a personal relationship with god, it reminds me of this:

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, don't take this as a dig, as its not meant as one, just some comic relief, but whenever someone claims a personal relationship with god, it reminds me of this."

Don't worry ... don't see it as a dig.

It's not my belief that God created everything just to have a personal relationship with me. I believe I have a personal relationship with God.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Think I'm going to let Gary cover this thread and go catch up on my reading. He seems to be saying all the stuff I'm thinking, but saying it better.

Shannon: sorry, not all my bible/moral comments..."

You know, Travis .... For what it's worth, I believe everyone has the right to voice his/her thoughts and opinions. If you'd rather let Gary cover this subject and catch up with reading, that's cool. :)

But, .... Every once in awhile, people say that in this thread and I always think .... I don't know. I just think everyone has a place and a point of view and a voice ... and should share if they have a mind to do so.

[Hazel]

Shannon, if you have a personal relationship with god, does he reciprocate to the same level as you give? When you speak to him, does he speak back? When you need a hug, does he give you one? A proper one, take you in his arms and hold you?

[[deleted user]]

What would happen, Hazel, if I answered "yes" to any of those questions?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Think I'm going to let Gary cover this thread and go catch up on my reading. He seems to be saying all the stuff I'm thinking, but saying it better.

Shannon: sorry, not all my bibl..."

It's just that lately, I'll be thinking of something and next thing I know, Gary has posted it, but stated better.
Can't decided if that makes me feel redundant or just spooked.

It's like some higher power is guiding us towards a greater truth...nah!

Im not really going anywhere, as I have the right to remain silent, but not the ability.

Whenever I hear 'personal relationship with god', It always sounds like their dating.
Which would make a great sitcom now that I think about it.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Whenever I hear 'personal relationship with god', It always sounds like their dating."

Yeah, I know .... I sort of hesitated when I used that phrase. It's not one I use and it does sound a bit odd, I think. I also think it has become a cliche. But, I didn't really know how to explain it ... without going on and on for several paragraphs in explaining what I meant. So, I decided to use it, especially since Gary isn't likely to post what I wanted to post.

;)

[Hazel]

Shannon, not much would happen, but like Travis says, a personal relationship sounds like dating, or a partnership. I just don't see how anyone can have that sort of relationship when you get no real response or feedback from the other person. It would be kinda like me sending some letters to a celebrity, and claiming a personal relationship, despite a lack of response. I guess its the turn of phrase that bothers me really. Without an equal level of reciprocity, I don't think there is a personal relationship.

Though honestly, if you told me god spoke to you, as in you actually physically heard his voice, rather than a feeling etc, then I'd be worried about you, in a concerned way.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Thats what it is speculation, but if have have evidence what is it."

Well the main evidence would be the lack of evidence that countries with more religious influence have more moral so..."

Gary wroteWell the main evidence would be the lack of evidence that countries with more religious influence have more moral societies.

The melting pot includes, not just religion or the lack of it and morals, but also laws of the land, ethics, freedom of speech and even culture. They all have an influence on each other.

Gary wroteI asked "what pluses from religion" and you have answered with only one thing "morals" and again you just presuppose that religion = morals. There is a lot of the bible I find blatantly immoral. In fact the majority of it.

Religion does not = morals. Today’s morals are derived from a religious upbringing. I don’t mean that a kid came from a Christian family compared to the kid next door who came from an atheist family, is morally better. They both live with-in a society that has had the benefit of a religious past that has shaped that societies laws, ethics culture etc.

The bible is the bible and it is open to interpretation.

Gary wroteNo. It's not better in any case. If you were on trial for a murder you didn't commit, would you want any answer (risking the wrong one), or would you rather have the search for truth?

That not a good analogy.

You are not able to search for the truth, it will take more years than we have all got.

Would you speculate as to whether there is life in the universe other than here on earth. Or would you not want any answer (risking the wrong one); would you rather have the search for truth?

[for-much-deliberation]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, don't take this as a dig, as its not meant as one, just some comic relief, but whenever someone claims a personal relationship with god, it reminds me of this:

"
I love this one Hazel...

[for-much-deliberation]

I remember this discussion starting way back in 2008, back then I made a contribution, so I chose to just highlight it once again, its always good to hear others views...

"Both science and religion are of value to life and living. the religious will tend to lean towards thier beliefs since these give them hope and a 'reason for existence', however, science is that which teaches us about our world, our environment, our universe, it helps us understand what takes place around us. This world was given to us to 'tend and keep' and the only way we can do such is to learn about it. The religious 'hope' is all well and good, but varying interpretations have only caused discord. Science and even more, an understanding of science, teaches us to value life even more and developes within us a greater appreciation for this world."...

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, not much would happen, but like Travis says, a personal relationship sounds like dating, or a partnership. I just don't see how anyone can have that sort of relationship when you get no re..."

Indeed....

As I mentioned in response to Travis, it's not a phrase I tend to use. But, it would have taken me paragraphs to attempt to explain what I meant.

First, do I, shudder, think I'm dating God or something like that? No. That's downright creepy.

I talk to God. I pray. Do I hear a voice, with my ears, that I believe is God's voice? No. I don't hear voices. Though, just this week, my students and I were in the computer lab, working on essays, when one of the boys started whispering and making noises. He wanted us to believe there was a ghost in the lab. It was a bit spooky for a split second, but I figured it out pretty quickly. ;) In general, though, I don't ... hear voices ....

However, ... since you asked .... There are times when I have this voice that's in my head. I'm sure some would say it's my voice. Sometimes it is. Some would say it's my, hmmm, intuition. Sometimes it is. But, sometimes ....

There have been times when I truly believe that it's God's voice. My mother would say it's the holy spirit. I've always been confused by the concept of the holy spirit, but ....

And, there are times when I've been led, in a certain way ....

You see, I'm hesitating here, because .... I know there are those who would question my veracity. There are those who would say I was off my nut. There are those who would point and laugh. So, I hesitate in explaining that further.

But, if you'd like some personal anecdotes, I think I might be willing to share.

However .... I'd really be opening myself up, more than I've done before, if I did so.

[cHriS]

Marts wrote: "I remember this discussion starting way back in 2008, back then I made a contribution, so I chose to just highlight it once again, its always good to hear others views...

"Both science and religio..."

This world was given to us to 'tend and keep'
Who was the giver?

[for-much-deliberation]

according to the faithful 'God', i was also brought up in christianity but i believe there is much more to life than what i have been thought...

[John]

cs wrote: "Religion does not = morals. Today’s morals are derived from a religious upbringing. I don’t mean that a kid came from a Christian family compared to the kid next door who came from an atheist family, is morally better. They both live with-in a society that has had the benefit of a religious past that has shaped that societies laws, ethics culture etc."
Like Witch Hunts, Crusades, Inquisition, suppression of women, torturing and/or killing scientists if they went contrary to the Church, forcing rape victims to marry their rapist as the rapists "punishment", condemning homosexuality, people dying of Aids because they are not allowed to use condoms, the church protecting pedophiles in their ranks, and - just to throw in a recent example - the good and faithful Christians of Cranston who are bullying and threatening a young girl and her family because she went to court and forced them to obey the law (Jessica Ahlquist, if someone wants to look it up).

Yeah, I'm really impressed with Christian Morals. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster they have nothing to do with our laws.
Or do you suggest that mankind wouldn't have figured out that killing, robbing and lying are maybe a little counterproductive if it weren't for religion? Makes me wonder who came up with it in the first place and how those people in the millenia preceding the big religions managed to survive...
(the first undisputed fossil evidence for a Homo Sapien dates back about 160.000 years)


You are not able to search for the truth, it will take more years than we have all got.


Would you speculate as to whether there is life in the universe other than here on earth. Or would you not want any answer (risking the wrong one); would you rather have the search for truth?
Of course are we able to search for "the truth", whatever that may be and how it's defined. Just because we probably won't reach a finite conclusion doesn't mean we shouldn't be searching. Science itself is basically just about raising a question and searching the answer for it.
Let's take the famous example of Isaac Newton whereas he saw an apple fall and raised the question why it always falls to the ground. After that came the theory of Gravity where we go from the falling of an apple to the creation of stars, planets and the universe itself, all being within in the bounds of our current understanding of Gravity. But this doesn't mean that we have a finite answer to Newtons Question. We probably never will (how do you determine that our understanding is perfect and there is nothing more to learn?). The Theory of Gravity is just our best explanation to date and has survived the testing of the scientists again and again.

Or to go back to religion: The Ancient Greeks thought that Apollo made the sun go up every day. We found a better answer.
The Norse thought that Thor is responsible for Thunder, Lightning and Storms. We found a better answer.

And up until 1920 men in the United States thought that women aren't capable of voting. We found a better answer.

To conclude: We should always be searching, whatever our question may be. It is the only way to receive a better future, be it for yourself, your children, or mankind.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Religion does not = morals. Today’s morals are derived from a religious upbringing. I don’t mean that a kid came from a Christian family compared to the kid next door who came from an atheist family, is morally better. They both live with-in a society that has had the benefit of a religious past that has shaped that societies laws, ethics culture etc."

So you acknowledge that religion doesn't equate to morals, then you claim that the benefit of a religious past is that morals are derived from a religious upbringing. That is a direct contradiction in the same paragraph.

Repeatedly stating that morals are derived from religion does not make the statement true. I know that repeatedly stating an opinion as fact is the basis of religion, but it doesn't prove anything.

If a religious past gave us the benefit of a moral society then we should recognise that the past was more moral than the present. Despite the protestations of evangelicals and the taliban this is almost the direct opposite of what we see.


cs wrote: "The bible is the bible and it is open to interpretation."

Agreed, and what does the interpretation? Human morality and ethics derived not from god but mutual respect, value for human life and the desire to participate in and receive the protection of a community and society.


cs wrote: "That not a good analogy."

Why? Again an opinion delivered as fact does not make a good point without supporting reasoning.


cs wrote: "You are not able to search for the truth, it will take more years than we have all got.

Wrong. It takes no time to search for the truth, you are talking about finding the truth, but the search is just as important. You are also assuming that their is only one ultimate truth to be arrived at, when in actual fact the wonders of the internet you are reading, and the doubled lifespan of the western world are just two of the many benefits of the truths uncovered so far.

To imagine a truth of our choice, because we are impatient to seek all the other truths is arrogant and short sighted.


cs wrote: "Would you speculate as to whether there is life in the universe other than here on earth. Or would you not want any answer (risking the wrong one); would you rather have the search for truth?

Well I am happy to speculate on aliens, even enjoy tales of Xenomorphs, Predators and Paul. This does not mean that I believe they exist just because I imagine them. Neither would I stop looking for the possibility of real alien life simply because I imagined something easier. Neither would I want to stop looking once I find one alien.

So yes, I would prefer the search for truth.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "However, ... since you asked .... There are times when I have this voice that's in my head. I'm sure some would say it's my voice. Sometimes it is. Some would say it's my, hmmm, intuition. Sometimes it is. But, sometimes ...."

The mind is an incredible thing, and yet also it has its bizarreness. To be able to process the sensory input of the world in any sort of meaningful way the human mind has developed the ability to "pattern match" very rapidly. In the most part this is what allows you to comprehend what you see and hear fast enough to avoid being somethings lunch, but it is easy to forget how much of this is illusion.

Have you ever seen optical illusions? There are a myriad of them and they work because what we see as sight is actually like a "virtual reality" that we experience consciously that is created in our minds and updated by our senses. This is why optical illusions work even though we may know that the line is straight or the shadowy dot is not really there.

In the same way it is common for audiatory illusions to sound like a voice. This doesn't mean you are 'imagining' the voice, it means that you literally hear a voice but it is nothing more than your brain finding a pattern in noise that seems to be a voice.

This doesn't mean a person is crazy, any more than seeing the spokes rotate in a drawing we know to be still is crazy. Paranoid schitzophrenics are crazy because they have more intense versions of these hallucinations and lose grip on reality. The crazy is when they start believing the voices are real.

Shannon wrote: "There have been times when I truly believe that it's God's voice. My mother would say it's the holy spirit. I've always been confused by the concept of the holy spirit, but .... "

As an aside the main point of the Holy Spirit was to preserve the Roman tradition of the Godhead. The Romans used to belive their gods complimented each other in threes. When Jesus was turned from a prophet into a diety in his own right, the concept of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost was eventually adopted to preserve this idea of the three in one power.

Shannon wrote: "You see, I'm hesitating here, because .... I know there are those who would question my veracity. There are those who would say I was off my nut. There are those who would point and laugh. So, I hesitate in explaining that further."

Well I am not questioning your veracity, though I may not agree with your conclusions, neither would I point and laugh. However I would advise due caution at sharing such anecdotes in such a forum.

One thing I would ask though is simply 'are you open to the concept that the feeling may have not been real'? Do you have any doubt that the creator of the universe is talking to you personally, when he has apparently failed to talk to others, or indeed has told other people different things?

After all, at least three of the Republican hopefuls in the recent primaries claim that God told them to run for president.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "One thing I would ask though is simply 'are you open to the concept that the feeling may have not been real'?"

;)

No.

I'll give you one example. There are many more. But, I'll stick with one.

Once when I was younger, in high school, I was at my aunt and uncle's. They had two children. Their youngest was crawling. I was doing something for my aunt in a room in her house. My aunt was in another room. I thought the children were napping.

All of a sudden, I got this horrible feeling ... out of nowhere .... I dropped what I was holding. I started shaking and felt sick. I just knew something horrible was happening or going to happen. I closed my eyes and thought .... My cousin's name, the one who was crawling, came into my mind ... followed by the word ... basement.

I went running out of the room and through the house toward the basement. I ran past my aunt, yelling at her, "Where's the baby?" I ran through the kitchen and to the basement and ... the door was open and there was the baby, at the top of the basement steps, holding one of his arms out, about to topple down. I grabbed him and held him. He was safe.

My aunt became hysterical. My uncle, we later found out, had come in and gotten something from the basement. His hands were full and he hadn't closed the door, thinking the children were napping and he'd be back inside to close the door. My aunt, unknowingly, had gotten my cousin up from his nap when she checked on him and saw he was awake. She had him in the dinning room with her. But, he was toddling and crawled into the kitchen and ....

My aunt and uncle questioned me very closely. How did I know? How had it happened ... my knowing my cousin was in trouble and that it had to do with the basement? It was incredible.

Now, if that had been an isolated incident, I'd say it was a coincidence. If things like that happened once in awhile, I'd still say it was likely a coincidence. But, .... Things like that happen all the time.

Now, I believe there are people among the Cherokee who say there are "knowing people" ... people who know things that others don't. I was reading a book once, about a Cherokee man, whose grandfather took him to a knowing woman. When I read that, I thought ... holy cow ... that's how I'll refer to it ... these things that happen ... knowings. My mother thinks they come from God ... that it's the holy spirit.

I don't know the how's and why's of it, Gary. There are times when I've been spooked by it, angered by it, exhausted by it, confused by it, etc.... But, I know, after having lived this for decades, that it is real.

It's one of the reasons I'm okay with believing in God while not being able to prove God's existence. I know ... I am 100% certain ... that things happen that can't be explained or proven. The world isn't as simplistic as some would make it out. Incredible things happen that can't be explained.

Now, .... Why would this happen to me? Why would God talk to me and not others?

I don't know, truthfully. I don't think I'm special, any more so than anyone else. I don't think I'm ... I don't know. I'm just a normal person. I'm a person just like anyone else. Sometimes I know things. It is what it is ... it's a part of my life.

This voice doesn't tell me to do certain things or believe in certain things. The voice doesn't tell me ... use birth control or don't ... run for president or don't ... preach on the street corner or don't. It tells me when people are hurt or sick or in trouble or about to be. That's all. Ha. That's all.

Maybe that's why I'm open ... open to people believing in different things and not believing at all. Open to mysteries that exist. Everyone is different and has different gifts and talents and experiences. And, not everything has a scientific explanation.

[Drew]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "One thing I would ask though is simply 'are you open to the concept that the feeling may have not been real'?"

;)

No.

I'll give you one example. There are many more. But, I'll s..."

There are many people that claim to have very similar premonitions that you are describing Shannon. Many of them call themselves psychics, some claim it is God talking to them. I lean on the idea that people are born with or gain the ability to use a higher percentage of their brains than the majority of us do. I don't believe it is magic or miracles. What I do believe is that it is a natural occurrence that has happened to persons since man evolved, so I don't think you are crazy, just confused.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Drew wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "One thing I would ask though is simply 'are you open to the concept that the feeling may have not been real'?"

;)

No.

I'll give you one example. There are many mo..."

As an atheist I've also had such experiences and it runs in my family. I believe it is a natural occurrence.

[Joshua]

Having experience in both religion and science, I find the distinction almost non-existent - what one would explain by belief, the other would have you accept (or reject) by faith - what one would dismiss by unbelief, the other would have you embrace by belief of a most dogmatic nature. By definition, science is knowing exactly what we don't know, and admitting to the same (also accepting that new data is a valid admission to the limited understanding we currently possess). Too, many of the world's greatest scientific minds have declared that the precision and perfection of all things scientific indicate, even prove beyond doubt the involvement of a divine power. Likewise, the most honest practitioners of religion will accept that science is a means whereby existence (though we may not fully understand it) can be created and/or maintained, and is not beyond the grasp of that divine being which "created" our own earthly domain. In essence, asking someone to choose between science and religion is like asking someone to remove one of their eyes so as to view the world without bias. It is a ludicrous premise - only by seeing and analyzing all within our reach can we come to a full realization of truth.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Joshua wrote: "Having experience in both religion and science, I find the distinction almost non-existent - what one would explain by belief, the other would have you accept (or reject) by faith - what one would ..."

Precision and perfection is your proof of a god's existence? What precision? What perfection?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I don't know the how's and why's of it, Gary. There are times when I've been spooked by it, angered by it, exhausted by it, confused by it, etc.... But, I know, after having lived this for decades, that it is real."

The reality of the event is not necessarily the issue, it is the true cause that is elusive. There are indeed some people that are more intuitive than others, and indeed some that gain access to knowledge and intuition that they themselves have no idea how it happened. Sometimes it can seem miraculous but everything that you cannot immediately comprehend the reasons for is miraculous. The brain is incredibly complex and most of it works at a level that we don't directly access. So yes if you are open minded then can you not see that there might be an explanation you haven't yet thought of, it is the closed mind that labels such things as impossible to explain.

Shannon wrote: "It's one of the reasons I'm okay with believing in God while not being able to prove God's existence. I know ... I am 100% certain ... that things happen that can't be explained or proven. The world isn't as simplistic as some would make it out. Incredible things happen that can't be explained.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that just because we lack an explanation, therefore none exists. It is further arrogance to equate the explicable with the simple. The world that we know is incredibly complex and that complexity is greater because it interacts.

Also, saying that something is "magic", or "supernatural", or "god" is an explanation. Plus it is the simplistic answer which you have just been arguing against. Simplistic answers often turn out to be a lot more complex than people think.

Shannon wrote: "And, not everything has a scientific explanation."

Yet.

As I said elsewhere, the term "science" simply means the pursuit of knowledge. It is not the body of knowledge that we have so far.

If there is a god, then the process of science must include understanding him and his purposes. If there are "supernatural powers" that can have real effects then science would be investigating those (which it regularly does, usually to little result).

To label something as "unknowable" or "beyond science" is to say that it is more random and utterly meaningless than the most nightmare vision of atheism that a theist can dream of.

Cause and effect. If that cause is prayer and that has a real measurable effect, then that is science.

[cerebus]

Joshua wrote: "Too, many of the world's greatest scientific minds have declared that the precision and perfection of all things scientific indicate, even prove beyond doubt the involvement of a divine power."
Examples please.....

[cerebus]

Cllementine wrote: "You obviosly support theory of an undetermined universe and I respect that. It is the basic theory of atheism.
I, on the other hand, support theory of determined multiverse. :)"
Atheism doesn't have a 'theory'.
What is this "theory of determined multiverse" you refer to? Can you point us to some scientific references for this please? I am familar with the multiverse concept, but have never seen it combined with the determinism I think you are referring to....

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Today’s morals are derived from a religious upbringing."
You make this claim again and again, with no evidence. If this is true, which religion is it that gives us morals? Where they conflict, how do you decide which one to choose? I may have missed your reply, if so please let me know which message it is in, but if not I repeat the question....assuming you are a christian, is it not just an accident of birth, being born into a christian family, that resulted in your choice?

[cHriS]

Johndoe wrote: "cs wrote: "Religion does not = morals. Today’s morals are derived from a religious upbringing. I don’t mean that a kid came from a Christian family compared to the kid next door who came from an at..."

people dying of Aids because they are not allowed to use condoms,

Would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.

[John]

cs wrote: "Would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms. "

The old argument that all life is sacred and that contraception and abortion go against the will of god?

I usually don't like to refer to Wikipedia, but they have a good overview of the Condom/AIDS topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic...

I freely admit that I have no idea how the other Christian faiths are positioned to this topic, but seeing the recent cases in some US States to punish woman who want an abortion as much as possible, I have a hard time imagining this is exclusively the Catholic Faith
(Examples:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/...

http://skepchick.org/2012/03/women-de...
)

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms. "

What Johndoe said.

Also.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/pro-ch...

That amendment would have made use of a condom technically illegal (depends where the hair is split on whether being in a woman's vagina, in a condom counts)as well as conveniently making gay male sex mostly illegal and male masturbation illegal.

The idea being that sex is 'wrong' except as necessary for perpetuating the species. The reason for this developed in the Dark Ages. One of the most powerful urges in humans is sex, so by making people feel guilty about it except as necessary childbirth, and then making legitimate marriage and legitimate children a religious ritual that needed Church approval, suddenly the Church controlled sex, and via that their followers.

Meanwhile in the modern world, men and women around the world are at the mercy of other's religious beliefs, whether they share them or not. The Catholic church and American evangelists have spread the blatant lie that condoms cannot stop the HIV virus, or even that the HIV virus does not cause AIDs. (Often encouraging the belief that AIDs is god's 'judgement' on the wicked.)

[cHriS]

Johndoe wrote: "cs wrote: "Would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms. "

The old argument that all life is sacred and that contr..."

I did ask if you would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.

Anyone can give links but can you prove they are correct.

[John]

cs wrote: "I did ask if you would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.


Anyone can give links but can you prove they are correct. "

Did you notice that little (well, actually not so little) "References" section at the bottom of the page? There is the proof you're looking for.
But to be a good sportsman, a few examples:
Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae"
Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pau...

The Vatican claiming that condoms don't stop AIDS:
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/...

Pope Benedict XVI claiming that condoms are actually worsening the HIV-problem:
The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/...

And just to throw in a little science:
Conclusions on STDs Transmitted by Genital Secretions
The published data documenting effectiveness of the male condom were strongest for
HIV. The Panel concluded that, based on a meta-analysis of published studies “always”
users of the male condom significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in men and
women. These data provided strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in
preventing HIV transmission in both men and women who engage in vaginal intercourse.
The Panel also concluded that the consistency of findings across four epidemiological
studies of gonorrhea indicated that the latex male condom could reduce the risk of
gonorrhea for men.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/organi...

And the statistics if you are out for the numbers:
http://www.avert.org/aids-statistics.htm
I'd suggest taking a look at the South African Statistic, especially the part with the estimated HIV prevalence on the National basis. It's rising.

Further down there is an overview of the reported deaths from 1997 to 2008. In this time about six million people died of HIV.
Compare that to the US. Since 1981 an estimated 617,025 people have died. In thirty years. South Africa almost got this number in 2006 alone (612,778 deaths).

[cHriS]

Johndoe wrote: "cs wrote: "I did ask if you would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.


Anyone can give links but can you prov..."

You still did not tell me how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.

What number were you using when you stated 'people are dying' or did you not have a figure in mind?

The words 'are not allowed' puzzle me.

I did read the bit that says 'about six million people died of HIV'.

How many of those died because they were not allowed to use a condom?

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms. "

What Johndoe said.

Also.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs..."

can you answer Johndoe's question, without links.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "I did ask if you would you like to expand on this a bit and maybe suggest how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.

Anyone can give links but can you prove they are correct. "

Well done for (perhaps inadvertently) demonstrating the difference between science and religion. You have responded to other people statements by demanding proof. These proofs are being provided to you by giving you links to sites where you can confirm information yourself. Now obviously the sites given are not necessarily 100% accurate or particularly scientifically rigorous, but (for example) Wikipedia is effectively peer-reviewed, and has links to further information sources to confirm.

However whenever you have made a statement and been asked to prove it, you merely restate the statement as if it is a given truth. Just like the answers provided by religion. No proof, little logic, just "it just is".

[Gary]

cs wrote: "can you answer Johndoe's question, without links. "

Which question of JohnDoe's? I believe I was agreeing with him.

Further to the point, what is this aversion to links? You have asked for proofs of things said to you. What form of proofs were you looking for then?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "

What Johndoe said.

Also.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/pro-ch...

That amendment would have made use of a condom technically illegal (depends where the hair is split on whether being in a woman's vagina, in a condom counts)as well as conveniently making gay male sex mostly illegal and male masturbation illegal."

So, Gary .... I went to this link. Looked. Read.

Huh?

Might want to take a look at ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02...

It was satire ....

As an aside ...

[John]

You still did not tell me how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.

Yes, I did. If you choose not to read the sources then it's your problem, not mine.

Regarding the rest of your statement I could go on to tell you that the number of people dying are in the HIV Statistics I linked. Why they are not allowed to use them is also in the links (official statements of the church, etc).
Though I have no idea what puzzles you about the "are not allowed" part. Maybe it's a colloquial thing since English isn't my first language.
I mean "are not allowed" in the same sense as Christians are not allowed to have other gods besides the one, to use gods name in vain, etc.

I could also give you examples on the correlation between the usage of condoms and the rate of HIV infections, like a study performed in Abidjan
http://www.aidsmark.org/vct_box/Resea...

The story of Ugandas progress in fighting HIV
http://www.avert.org/aids-uganda.htm

Or a shorter version to the same story
http://www.thebody.com/content/art924...

But I'm guessing you will refuse that also since they are links and not a personalized summary.


And since I can't help but notice that you completely abandoned your argument and instead concentrated on a single, relatively irrelevant example to my argument - remember, my actual argument was that Christian Morals are not a "benefit" to our society, at least not if the Believers orientate themselves on the teachings of the christian mainstream or the church instead of their own conscience.
(just to throw in another recent example: The Vatican reprimanded a order of Nuns because they did to much to help the poor and not enough to fight homosexuals and abortions
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/us-c... )


So, I'm going to take a wild guess here: You're deliberately ignoring the links in the hope of either an argument out of ignorance or a mistake so you can concentrate on that point and ignore the rest, just as with the last answers your received after you claim of the benefit of religious morals to society, by both Gary and me.

Am I near the mark?

[[deleted user]]

Johndoe wrote: "You still did not tell me how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.

Yes, I did. If you choose not to read the sources then it's your problem, not mine.

Regarding the ..."

Hey, there. First, I want to say, as I've said before, that I don't believe morality is based in religion ... that only religious people have morals, etc....

I do want to say one thing, though. (I did look at you links, by the way.)

I think we should be careful of making over-generalizations.

You mentioned, "Remember, my argument was that Christian Morals are not a "benefit" to our society, at least not if the Believers orientate themselves on the teachings of the church instead of their own conscience. (just to throw in another recent example: The Vatican reprimanded a order of Nuns because ..."

Not all Christians are Catholics, obviously. In addition, while I know the Catholic church and the pope make the statements and take the positions mentioned in your links, not all Christian denominations take the same stance ... with regard to safe sex, etc....

Just wanted to put that out there ....

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "The reality of the event is not necessarily the issue, it is the true cause that is elusive."

Gary ... You had asked, "Gary wrote: "One thing I would ask though is simply 'are you open to the concept that the feeling may have not been real'?"

My answer was no. No, I'm not open to the concept that the feeling may not have been real. Is the true cause elusive? Yes. As I also stated, I don't know the how's and why's of it.

And, regarding knowings and proof .... This has come up before. Knowings. Psychic abilities. Atheists have said, in past posts, that such things do not exist. Science can't prove their existence. So, they don't exist.

My point. I know my experiences, and I know they are real. I don't know what they are or why they are, etc.... But, it is what it is. Can I prove it? Have I been hooked up to brain scans, etc...? No.

BTW, I was quite taken by the fact that Drew and ATCM didn't point and laugh or snarl or tell me I was crazy, etc.... I've gotten that in the past from time to time. It always amazes me when people hear it or experience it with me and, basically, say, "So ...." A rare few accept it and think of it as a normal happening. (Thank you!) I, myself, have also wondered about the brain and brain function and whether or not there is a link there.

The point, though .... We just don't know. I know there are people who have this thing. I'm one. But .... I can't prove it scientifically.

But, I know that ...

Life isn't as simple as ... Since you can't prove it, Shannon, it doesn't exist. Oh, but it does. Anyone who knows me in life and has experienced this with me, knows that it does. Not because I tell them. Because they experience it first hand ... before an event happens or as it happens. But, the truth is I can't prove it, in general, to people who don't know me and haven't experienced it. I can't prove what it is or why it is or ....

Therefore, I'm aware that life just isn't that simple. It isn't as simple as saying, "There is no such thing as knowings, because you can't prove it." And, if life isn't that simple, it's not necessarily as easy as saying, "There is no God, because you can't prove God exists."

I know there are things that exist ... that can't be explained.

Throw the word "yet" in there if you'd like. But, the fact remains ... there are things in this world that can't be explained. And, I've said that I don't have all the answers and don't know the how's and the why's of it. My mother thinks these things come from God or the holy spirit. I'm not sure. I think they do. But, I'm not sure. It's not like I heard a voice in my head that said, "I am God, Shannon. I'm giving you this information in order to help someone." Nope. That hasn't happened. I just get the information, and my instinct is to help people. My point ... perhaps this is why I'm open to believing without proof.

As always, live and let live. This is my experience. But, I recognize and respect the fact that it's not everyone's experience.