Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 4:00 AM
24 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Why This Belief?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 111 (213782)
06-03-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by daaaaaBEAR
06-02-2005 11:34 PM


take a look at demon worshippers

Sorry, all you religions are just the same to me. After all the Satanists tell me you worship the bad guy.

The other day, I read an article that talked about how some young girls with anorexia had actually reified their illness into a goddess that they did rituals for - Ana. I mean, that says it all for me. That's how religions get started - we don't always understand why we do the things we do, we have compulsions that don't feel like choices to us, and so we deify them in order to have something to try to talk to, reason with, exert influence over. It's about trying to sway the unswayable.

tell me they're JUST crazy.

None of you are crazy. Just a little confused.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 06-02-2005 11:34 PM daaaaaBEAR has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 111 (213783)
06-03-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
06-02-2005 11:38 PM


I still maintain that the intricate nature of the natural world is far more likely to be designed than to have happened by random chance.

How much more likely? Show your work. Do you understand what I'm asking? You're comparing probabilities and telling me one is larger than the other; I want to see your numbers so I can judge for myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 06-02-2005 11:38 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 06-03-2005 10:20 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 33 of 111 (213809)
06-03-2005 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
06-02-2005 11:38 PM


GDR writes:

I still maintain that the intricate nature of the natural world is far more likely to be designed than to have happened by random chance. If you want more detail see post 7 on this thread.

I just don't understand how you can make that claim. What constitutes "more likely?" I've reviewed post 7 a couple of times and find no supporting evidence to this claim. If you could quote a passage or two that highlight this that would be much appreciated. I'm not necessarily asking for scientific evidence, I would just like to know why you come to this conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 06-02-2005 11:38 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 06-03-2005 10:58 AM Max Power has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4826
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 34 of 111 (213819)
06-03-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
06-03-2005 7:41 AM


crashfrog writes:

How much more likely? Show your work. Do you understand what I'm asking? You're comparing probabilities and telling me one is larger than the other; I want to see your numbers so I can judge for myself.

I gather by the signature that shows on your profile that you call yourself a secular humanist. You have come to one conclusion about the why's of this universe and our existance and I have come to another.

I have already told you that I have no numbers. The question is philosophical not scientific.

crashfrog writes:

None of you are crazy. Just a little confused.

I use expressions like "a greater likelihood", whereas you use expressions like the quote I used. You say definitively that you are right which sounds like you must have proof for secular humanism. I'd like to see your numbers and your proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2005 7:41 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 7:23 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4826
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 35 of 111 (213829)
06-03-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Max Power
06-03-2005 9:45 AM


Hi Max

I'm not sure what it is you are looking for that wasn't in my earlier post.

There is so much that has to be maintained in perfect balance for this world and this universe to exist that I contend that logic dictates that everything is designed. Is that proof? No. Is there proof that there is no design? No.

I remember holding my children as infants. There is a joy and sense of connectedness that goes beyond physical reality. Is that proof? No.

I simply maintain that when one considers the complexity of this world and of life itself, the range of emotions that we can experience, the fact that we are able to call something right or wrong, that we distinguish between good and evil, and the fact that we have consciousness at all causes me to believe that Intelligent Design is far more likely than not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Max Power, posted 06-03-2005 9:45 AM Max Power has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Max Power, posted 06-03-2005 12:10 PM GDR has responded

    
Max Power
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 36 of 111 (213854)
06-03-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
06-03-2005 10:58 AM


I appologize, that was a little off topic, I always get a little erked when people don't present reasoning for their statements. I will accept your statement for the purpose of this discussion.

Changing gears a little bit. The following quotes are from message 7.

Also, it seems to me that if the Atheistic view was accurate, their nature would be to simply get as much as they can, as quickly as they can, and anyway they can. My experience with Atheists is that this just isnít the case. This indicates to me that their positive attributes are from something other than the natural. They love their families, and have compassion for others just like everyone else. I donít see any evidence that feelings of love, compassion and values are a part of any evolutionary process. It certainly appears to me that there is something external to our physical world that is influencing our thoughts. It is also obvious that we can all choose to ignore that influence, or as it has been put, ďthat still small voiceĒ.

You say that evolutionary processes don't lead to loving one's family or having compassion for others. Are these traits not seen in other species? Loving ones families is essential for many species to survive. Look at the mother child relationship for dogs, monkeys, etc. I think that compassion can be put in that same boat. I guess the definition of love and compassion can come into question. Do you contend that the thing that causes a mother dog to protect her babies is different then the thing that causes a mother human to protect her child?

I canít prove that Christ was who he said he was, but I believe that the circumstantial evidence is convincing. Why would he carry on a false messianic complex to the cross? Why would his followers who had been totally dispirited after the crucifixion go on to commit the rest of their lives to taking Christís life and message to the world. Some of the apostles were executed because of this commitment.

What about the possibility that Jesus was dillusional but at the same time very convincing. Look at how we treat modern day people who "talk to God." To be dillusional doesn't necessarily mean they can't be extremely intelligent and persuasive.
What about the evidence of all of the individuals who gave his/her life for the Islam way? A common response is that they have been deceived by political leaders or dillusional leaders. Why is it so obvious that these individuals are dillusional or politically influenced and not Jesus? Strength of conviction (even enough to die for) does not imply (in my mind) divinity.

I don't mean to attack you or anything like that, but I've always been torn as to why any single religion. It really seems like a "world view" choice which has been basically decided by where and when you (not necessarily you specifically) were born. How can I justify devoting my life to a belief that is based on the random chance that I was born here or there? When there are major correlations between families that are extremely religious in a certain religion and there children following the same way, I can't justify a God punishing me for not following the right religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 06-03-2005 10:58 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 06-03-2005 2:28 PM Max Power has not yet responded
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2005 8:31 PM Max Power has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4826
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 37 of 111 (213928)
06-03-2005 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Max Power
06-03-2005 12:10 PM


MAX POWER writes:

You say that evolutionary processes don't lead to loving one's family or having compassion for others. Are these traits not seen in other species? Loving ones families is essential for many species to survive. Look at the mother child relationship for dogs, monkeys, etc. I think that compassion can be put in that same boat. I guess the definition of love and compassion can come into question. Do you contend that the thing that causes a mother dog to protect her babies is different then the thing that causes a mother human to protect her child?

First, for the record, I'm not saying that the TofE is wrong, I'm just saying that that biological evolution is one thing, and that what we are talking about is something altogether different.

I agree that these traits are also in other species although not to the same degree. For example after we had our pup for a couple of months we took him back to his mother. There was zero recognition. He was just another dog. I'll be concerned and anxious about my kids and grandkids until the day I die.

At any rate I don't see the point as being particularly germane as I would also contend that the care that a mother dog has for her offspring comes from the same source as my love for my kids.

MAX POWER writes:

What about the possibility that Jesus was delusional but at the same time very convincing. Look at how we treat modern day people who "talk to God." To be delusional doesn't necessarily mean they can't be extremely intelligent and persuasive.
What about the evidence of all of the individuals who gave his/her life for the Islam way? A common response is that they have been deceived by political leaders or dillusional leaders. Why is it so obvious that these individuals are dillusional or politically influenced and not Jesus? Strength of conviction (even enough to die for) does not imply (in my mind) divinity.

As I said. At the time of the crucifixion the disciples were dispirited and felt that it had all been for nothing. Peter denied even knowing Christ three times.

Subsequent to that they commit their lives to carrying on Christ's work. Why? I contend it is because they met the resurrected Christ. If I had been one of them it certainly would have got my attention.

I don't pretend to understand the world of the metaphysical. I am convinced of its existence and I suppose anyone who believes in ID has to believe in the metaphysical as the intelligence in ID has to come from somewhere.

I also assume that it isn't just the voice of God influencing us. (I'm not talking audible voices.)I also assume that not all the spiritual influences in our lives are positive ones. Let's just say that whatever it was influencing the 9/11 hijackers wasn't God.

MAX POWER writes:


I don't mean to attack you or anything like that, but I've always been torn as to why any single religion. It really seems like a "world view" choice which has been basically decided by where and when you (not necessarily you specifically) were born. How can I justify devoting my life to a belief that is based on the random chance that I was born here or there? When there are major correlations between families that are extremely religious in a certain religion and there children following the same way, I can't justify a God punishing me for not following the right religion.

I believe that I have already addressed this issue so Iíll repeat what I have already posted in #7 and #14 in the next three paragraphs.

As a Christian I donít believe that other faiths are completely wrong. I frankly found it very reaffirming to read the Book Of Buddha. The original Buddha preached the very same message that Christ gave us which is to love your neighbour and beyond that even, to love your enemy. Christianity does proclaim the idea that Christ was God incarnate. In many ways Christ completed other faiths in existence at that time. (Islam came along later.)

As I said, I donít believe that other faiths are completely wrong and frankly I donít accept the idea that there are nothing but Christians in heaven. I believe that those of other faiths who genuinely embrace the message of love and forgiveness are actually serving Christ even if they donít know him by name. I know that there are Christians on this forum that will disagree with me on this point but frankly I can only say that I believe they are mistaken. The Bible also makes the point that it isnít those who know the message of Christ that are right with him, but it is those who have his message in their hearts. As one Christian songwriter put it, ďit doesnít matter if you know the Bible if itís all just in your head, the thing I need to ask you is have you done the things I saidĒ.

I am guessing that you are basing your opinion on your experiences in the US. I live in Canada. In Canada the prominent religion is Secular Humanism. Just about any belief is treated with more respect than Christian belief.
In actuality the Christian faith is growing far more rapidly in Asia, Africa and South America than in North America or Europe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Max Power, posted 06-03-2005 12:10 PM Max Power has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 06-06-2005 2:52 PM GDR has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 111 (214033)
06-03-2005 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Max Power
06-03-2005 12:10 PM


What about the possibility that Jesus was dillusional but at the same time very convincing.

What about comming back from the dead?
Now thats convincing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Max Power, posted 06-03-2005 12:10 PM Max Power has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hrun, posted 06-03-2005 8:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Max Power, posted 06-04-2005 10:51 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 06-04-2005 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 111 (214035)
06-03-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2005 8:31 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

What about comming back from the dead?
Now thats convincing.

Indeed, that would be convincing. I guess I just have to hope that the rapture occurs during my lifetime. Then I might be convinced. Come on, let's all hope (or pray) together, so I may be convinced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2005 8:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 111 (214109)
06-04-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
06-03-2005 10:20 AM


I have already told you that I have no numbers. The question is philosophical not scientific.

Comparing likelyhoods? The question is mathematical, not philosophical. So show your work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 06-03-2005 10:20 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 11:14 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 41 of 111 (214155)
06-04-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2005 8:31 PM


What about comming back from the dead?
Now thats convincing.

I guess this comes down to the credibility of the bible, which has been discussed indepth in other threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2005 8:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 11:51 AM Max Power has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 42 of 111 (214160)
06-04-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2005 8:31 PM


What about comming back from the dead?
Now thats convincing.

Lots of people come back from the dead. It's practically routine nowadays.


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2005 8:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4826
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 43 of 111 (214162)
06-04-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
06-04-2005 7:23 AM


crashfrog writes:

Comparing likelyhoods? The question is mathematical, not philosophical. So show your work.

Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary

likelihood n. 1 probability; likeliness
2 something that is likely to happen; a probability
3 likeness, resemblance (Obs)

likely a. 1 having the appearance of truth; credible; probable;
as a likely story
2 seeming as if it would happen or make happen
reasonably to be expected; apparently destined
as, it is likely to leave at any minute

There is no mention of how a probability or likelihood is arrived at, and no mention of mathematical proof. If you like I'll say that when I look at the complexity of life and the complexity of nature that is required to maintain life, I come to the conclusion that it is more probable to be by design than by some cosmic coincidence.

I am saying that I believe design is the most probable conclusion to come to. You make much more definitive statements such as this quote.

crashfrog writes:

None of you are crazy. Just a little confused.

I asked before that seeing as how you contend that you are dealing with fact and I am only dealing with probabilities how about you show me your mathematical proof, or your numbers as you put it, that ID is impossible.

By the way; I don't think that you're crazy either; just spiritually challenged. :)

This message has been edited by GDR, 06-04-2005 08:15 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 7:23 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 11:39 AM GDR has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 111 (214166)
06-04-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
06-04-2005 11:14 AM


There is no mention of how a probability or likelihood is arrived at, and no mention of mathematical proof.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

quote:
Main Entry: prob∑a∑bil∑i∑ty
Pronunciation: "prš-b&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties

a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities


You say that you compared ratios. Well, I want to see the ratios you compared. You say you compared chances; well, I want to see the chances you figured for the first outcome vs. the second.

Otherwise I'd like you to admit that what you did was not an analysis of likelyhoods, but simply an argument from incredulity. You found what you wished to find, not what was accurate. You don't want to believe that ID is false; therefore, you do not. Which is your perogative but don't disguise it as any kind of objective search for truth by clouding the issue with the mathematical language of probability and likelyhood. We deserve your honesty, not your lies.

I asked before that seeing as how you contend that you are dealing with fact and I am only dealing with probabilities how about you show me your mathematical proof, or your numbers as you put it, that ID is impossible.

I never said it was impossible. I think it's quite likely, in fact, that intelligence will come to be able to design and create life.

But, according to the most accurate scientific models, that's not how the living things currently on Earth came to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 11:14 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 12:26 PM crashfrog has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2851 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 45 of 111 (214168)
06-04-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mikehager
06-01-2005 12:49 PM


Re: I agree, mostly.
One question that keeps getting raised in my mind is why do the vast majority of theists have their sudden, deep conversions about the socially acceptable faith in the society they were born and reside in?

I would be very surprised if it was a majority let alone a vast majority that have sudden deep conversions. I think certain sects that emphasize emotions create "revival" atmospheres which lend themselves to strong experiences in the same way voodoo or any emotional cult does things. However I suspect most theists were simply raised up and their faiths developed over time. Catholics tend to be born rather than converted for example.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mikehager, posted 06-01-2005 12:49 PM mikehager has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019