Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God & the Fairy Tree
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 8 of 306 (407349)
06-25-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
06-25-2007 5:51 PM


Why should I interpret the fairy tree sign as an obvious joke, and take religious reasoning in the same vein seriously?
This raises an even bigger question. Why do people need others to comfort there insecurities of the unknown?. The fairy tree doesn't share many serious implications with the origin of life. It does however, raise some interesting questions as we move to reason. Within the context of life and it's origin, the absolutes always seem just out of reach. - Beyond the frustrations, the only assured fact we actually possess is that we exist!
So, under the terms, it would seem as though we are left with nothing but personal choices and decisions to satisfy our needs.
I will say however, that for anyone truly quantifying the available possibilities regarding the origin of life, to the distaste of many, there will always be one outstanding theory in the pack. The the others will lack plausibility and the supporting data to make a good showing.
The tree illustration is interesting nonetheless. If it came down to a personal opinion, I would say that people choose to invest in faith as a response to satisfy the unanswered. Ever notice how people with faith commonly challenge there own beliefs with standing evidence? While, I would never sell out on such a shorthanded answer, in a nutshell this is how it most likely works.
In a world crumbling beneath our feet, we are all subject to salvation.
Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 06-25-2007 5:51 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 06-25-2007 9:57 PM pbee has replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 06-25-2007 10:25 PM pbee has replied
 Message 63 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-26-2007 1:46 PM pbee has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 10 of 306 (407359)
06-25-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluegenes
06-25-2007 9:57 PM


Isn't that just another way of describing the "God of the Gaps"?
I'm not familiar with that theory or belief.
And isn't it questionable how much choice is involved, when we consider that most people of faith believe in pretty much the same thing as their parents, which makes it look as though childhood indoctrination plays a big role in what people may describe as "choice"?
Given our nature, it is quite inevitable to avoid transcending physical, and psychological traits down to our children. We also have strong evidence which demonstrates that our offspring inherently share various genetic patterns which facilitate specific social circumstances with or without intervention.(be careful what you believe in!)
However, this is not at all a bad thing. If the biblical accounts are at all true, then the only way for humanity could survive the ordeal *would be through lineage.
I may've misunderstood you here, but no, I'd never really noticed that. I think that if people of faith really did challenge their own beliefs, they wouldn't be people of faith for very long.
I am a man of faith, and I find myself constantly scrutinizing the scriptures and claims. - Many people(deep down) don't truly have faith in God and are afraid of what they may find. This could very well be the results of the hand me down belief system(as mentioned earlier).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 06-25-2007 9:57 PM bluegenes has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 12 of 306 (407362)
06-25-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
06-25-2007 10:25 PM


Yes, the outstanding theory on the origin of life is abiogenesis and the outstanding theory on the diversity of life is evolution. What does that have to do with God or fairies?
Well thats the beauty of it isn't it. We cannot prove anything. While many do speak with authority, the reality of it is that there are no absolutes beyond our own personal beliefs.
However, this does not hinder our capacity to evaluation and reason. In fact, the remaining unknown variable in the formula becomes key to peoples willingness to apply faith in something they cannot see or even confirm.
Beliefs aside, the theory of abiogenesis seemed better suited the earlier scientific era's(see Pasteur’s experiments). It seems to ride merely on speculation nor considered scientific since it is not subject to observation or experiment. Consequentially, it does not do well against other theories. - But it is an interesting theory nonetheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 06-25-2007 10:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 06-25-2007 10:54 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 15 of 306 (407365)
06-25-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
06-25-2007 10:54 PM


Now now... lets not be petty. I commented to the OP by giving my views on the topic in a responsible and receptive way. - As I see it, these discussions are not about being right or wrong but at getting the opportunity to broaden our views on matters. Who cares if someone disagrees with our ideas, that should have 0 affect on our own personal beliefs in the end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 06-25-2007 10:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 06-25-2007 11:12 PM pbee has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 30 of 306 (407440)
06-26-2007 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Parasomnium
06-26-2007 8:13 AM


Re: Check your logic, Mike.
Yet we deride the fairy story, and are expected to treat the God-believers with respect. Why? Please, explain to me how I am to know what to do in each case.
The beliefs or practices of others should have no influence on our social responsibilities towards people. - This is not implying that we *should respect whatever people do. It does however imply that we have an inherent responsibility to respect people as persons(within reason).
I am afraid that's a bit of an oversimplification of the Pink Unicorn argument. It's not that they are the same, i.e. identical, but that they are equally absurd.
This brings be back to a point I made earlier.
Well thats the beauty of it isn't it. We cannot prove anything. While many do speak with authority, the reality of it is that there are no absolutes beyond our own personal beliefs.
However, this does not hinder our capacity to evaluation and reason. In fact, the remaining unknown variable in the formula becomes key to peoples willingness to apply faith in something they cannot see or even confirm.
One outstanding characteristic in children, is their capacity to create imaginary conditions. By our own standards this is classified as normal behavior, since children lack the ability to reason as adults do. However, as we grow, so does our ability to justify our own beliefs. We inherently gain the capacity to evaluate and move by confidence within adult social ranks.
This raises some interesting questions regarding reality and reason. - if reasoning is justified by demonstrating a belief which can in turn stand up to social standards, then is it ever possible to conclude that we can be assured of anything? The answer seems to be leaning towards "no". - Based on our own historical data, It does not seem plausible to conclude that human beings have the capacity to resolve problems which precede our own experiences. While it may seem as though we are getting smarter, life has shown us that with more knowledge comes more implications and so and so forth(see quantum physics).
Getting back to the comparative of God & Fairies, the most obvious attributes shared between a fairy tale and God is the invisibility factor. Since we already know, based on childhood experiences that invisibility is something best left in the books(so to speak) is it ever safe to put the theory up for consideration? - Just as the idea of projecting images and sounds through space would have produced rolling laughter in the not so distant past, the notion of none material intelligence does stand to reason.
When all is said and done, as adults we have no authority on the beliefs of other consenting adults. This is not saying we cannot reason or challenge someones beliefs. However, we are no longer dealing with cases of who is right and wrong. We are now looking at humility and social tolerance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 8:13 AM Parasomnium has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 45 of 306 (407464)
06-26-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Parasomnium
06-26-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Check your logic, Mike.
P: It is absurd to believe in something without objective evidence for it.
P: The Invisible Pink Unicorn has no objective evidence for it.
C: Therefore, it is absurd to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Already we have run ahead of the ball. - Define Objective Evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 11:59 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 12:36 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 53 of 306 (407476)
06-26-2007 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
06-26-2007 12:17 PM


Re: Fairies and God
The reasons someone chooses to maintain a belief in any supernatural thing are many and varied, but usually take the form of some kind of easing of discomfort (fear) about the unknown, or the delight and stimulation it provides in thinking that magic really does exist.
In this day and age, we are quite assured that there is no such thing as magic. The terms, supernatural and magic fall into pointless descriptions bound from an earlier time.
Here is a quote from a very intelligent man(knock on wood), who raised an interesting point on our own limited perception of what is, and isn't natural.
The "supernatural" is a ludicrous idea. even if there is something completely unseasonable, invisible, almighty, omnipresent, and you know "supernatural" isn't it just as big of a part of this universe as say gravity? and even if we cant know about it, how does our competence of it determine its reality? so the very definition of supernatural is completely devoid of meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 06-26-2007 12:17 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by nator, posted 06-27-2007 7:03 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 56 of 306 (407480)
06-26-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Parasomnium
06-26-2007 12:36 PM


Re: Objective evidence
Under this definition, we are assured of nothing on anything regarding the origin of life.
"If you don't feel the presence of God in your life, it's probably because you don't believe hard enough."
That's a bogus argument. Believing something harder doesn't make it more likely or true.
When this type of argument is used in jest, as with the Fairy Tree story, we all know how to judge it: it's a bit of a joke we play on our children.
But when the same type of argument is used in earnest, as with the God story, then all of a sudden we must respect it. But it's the same bogus argument! How can intelligent, mature people not see this?
Good point! people should think before they speak. I for one have never supported blind beliefs. Sadly, we seem bound and plagued with such problems. Luckily for us, we grow and earn the right of passage to independent thought.
While it is true that believing something harder may not make it more true, a deeper evaluation will always improve the accuracy of the conclusion thus adding or removing value in truth. With enough scrutiny, it is possible to reach highly reliable conclusions regarding God and the origin of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 12:36 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2007 2:00 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 61 of 306 (407491)
06-26-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Parasomnium
06-26-2007 1:12 PM


Re: Intellectually immature: definition
wouldn't think so, because there isn't any such argument. I know exactly why you believe in God: because you were taught to. If you'd been raised in India, you'd have believed in Shiva & Co. And you'd have been just as sure of your belief as you are now. Rationality has no part in it.
I'm not sure if I'm reading right but... unless you know the person personally the 'statement' is not worthy of exactitude. Speaking from my own experience, I was raised in a family of science, the term God certainly never made it to the diner table. There are plenty of people who have independently rationalized God's existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 1:12 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2007 1:43 PM pbee has replied
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2007 1:47 PM pbee has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 67 of 306 (407502)
06-26-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
06-26-2007 1:43 PM


Re: Intellectually immature: definition
To my knowledge, the statement implied that the precise reason why a person would believe in God precludes independent though. - "rationality; reason, reasonableness the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
You're asking us to believe that all these people, acting rationally and independently of each other... arrived at the exact same religious conclusion as the vast majority of the people in their society.
That's a little ridiculous. What you're asking us to believe is that there's something, then, in the air or water that makes people in America believe in God and people in India believe in Shiva.
Clearly that's stupid. People in America tend to come to Christian conclusions because most Americans are Christians, while most people in India come to Hindu conclusions because most Indians are Hindu. Obviously.
You'd never allow the same reasoning for languages, you know. If I were to come here and tell you that I didn't actually learn English growing up - that, working completely independently, I developed my own unique language... that turned out to be identical in every way to English, you'd rightly call "bullshit." But make the argument about religion, and suddenly it convinces you.
I'm not asking anything, nor am I referring to 'all these people'. Looking back at my own response, I see a simple statement relevant to my own experiences. Having said this, I'm not sure the rest of your comment is addressable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2007 1:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2007 9:20 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 69 of 306 (407507)
06-26-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Chiroptera
06-26-2007 2:00 PM


Re: Objective evidence
I'm not sure what you mean by this. On the face of it, it's not true. If life originated on earth without the intervention of living or intelligent beings, then, as a precursor, complex organic molecules must be able to be formed from inorganic materials that would have been found on the primeval earth through processes that would have occurred at that time.
The Miller/Urey experiment verified that complex organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors. These results have been repeated and verified and therefore constitute objective evidence. In fact, all of abiogenesis research being done involves laboratory experiments (and perhaps computer simulations) that can be repeated and observed by different people.
Fascinating! I have no issues with anything here on earth. The big question is - 'Where did it all begin'
(off topic) Not that it matters, but the Miller/Urey experiment was a farce. If you want to debate that, submit a new topic, and I will gladly demonstrate disprove its worth through scientific methods.
Edited by pbee, : No reason given.
Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2007 2:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2007 2:18 PM pbee has replied
 Message 71 by AdminNosy, posted 06-26-2007 2:21 PM pbee has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 72 of 306 (407511)
06-26-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chiroptera
06-26-2007 2:18 PM


Re: Objective evidence
Huh? But you're the one you brought up the example of abiogenesis.
I did no such thing, the topic of abiogenesis was initially raised by someone else and I responded. And, I am now admitting that the comment wasn't really relevant to the preceding discussion about the comparison between god-belief and fairy-belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2007 2:18 PM Chiroptera has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 90 of 306 (407584)
06-26-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
06-26-2007 9:20 PM


Re: Intellectually immature: definition
every single religious person adopting the same basic religion as everyone else around them?
I think there's a pretty extensive burden of evidence for anyone trying to assert that religion is something people come to through a process of independent thought.
Although you may believe this, it is not conclusive. We could observe religious preferences based on heritage and popularity. Likewise, we have a great number of people who discovery their own path independently. - I think its safe to say that generalization is rarely if ever the method to accurate results when it comes to faith, even though, it appeals to those in need of added reassurance.
Truth is, we have people of various faiths across all of the nations. Furthermore, while some would nonchalantly downplay the level of independence tied into ones faith, they rarely acknowledge and recognize that all religions share a common historical path down history.
Alas, people of faith are not *all mindless drones as we had hoped, but rather independent persons with a determination to get more out of life.
Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2007 9:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2007 10:25 PM pbee has replied
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2007 11:31 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 92 of 306 (407586)
06-26-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Chiroptera
06-26-2007 10:25 PM


Re: Intellectually immature: definition
Divided we stand, united we fall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2007 10:25 PM Chiroptera has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 108 of 306 (407630)
06-27-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
06-26-2007 11:31 PM


Re: Intellectually immature: definition
I don't think anybody said anybody was a drone. But it's abundantly obvious that humans are actually quite terrible at developing truly independent reasoning. The influence of the "mob" is always upon us.
That goes without question. However the point raised here was that within the scope of this conversation, it was becoming somewhat of a habit to discredit faith by presenting demographics and family values as the underlying determinants.
Yes, but it's relatively rare for someone in the middle of one faith community to abandon that faith completely and live some other faith.
If several million people equates as rare, then you are correct. - But I choose to remain skeptical of that statement.
Most of the controversy circling these discussions are bound by sincerity. For example, if we we are evaluating results, a biased person(group) would selectively illustrate the instances to favor his or her argument. The same applies for other groups. The point of it is, beyond personal emotions, the argument is tainted and futile.
If we are to conclude that our world is plagued by peer influences, then let us free ourselves and tear down our schools, burn the books and abolish television as well as all other forms of influence. Let us return to our roots and deliver our children to pure and unadulterated lifestyles.
The reality of it is, that none believers believe that those teaching faith to their children are wrong in doing so. They establish this notion based on the condition that they cannot prove or disprove the information. It is in every sense of the word, selective reasoning, it proves than our inherent inabilities to cope with indifference is very much alive despite a timeline riddled with such atrocities, and yet... no one cares to pay tribute to the reality of who we are. Every generation feels and believes he or she is unique and somehow superior to the past.
SO where is the problem? the one believing in the unknown or the one who cannot accept the unknown?
The one acknowledging indifference or the one balking at indifference?
Comparing fairies to God and faith is about equivalent to comparing a Skateboard to a Bus. Though both have wheels and carry a person they share very little where form and function are concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2007 11:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 06-27-2007 11:40 AM pbee has replied
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2007 4:41 PM pbee has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024