Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 160
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    There isn't a difference between something and someone?
    A someone is a something.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    THat's exactly how you've been responding.
    Actually, it hasn't. Please show me a quote where I was as flippant as, "Cool, remind me to care what you think."

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Are you now saying you've petty, childish, and antagonizing?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    BTW- who is talking about religion?
    You're right, no one has been. My original sentence should have been:

    I'm not going to handle people with kid gloves just because this section of my favorite Ravens website is apparently an echo chamber filled with people who believe on faith.

    Not a shot. This sentence just more accurately reflects what I feel and how the conversation has been up to now.




  2. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,744

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    A someone is a something.
    You know the point I am trying to make. I am someone (and something a human) my computer is something.

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Actually, it hasn't. Please show me a quote where I was as flippant as, "Cool, remind me to care what you think."
    I think it started right about here:
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Please let the board know when you have attained your Nobel Prize.
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    You're right, no one has been. My original sentence should have been:

    I'm not going to handle people with kid gloves just because this section of my favorite Ravens website is apparently an echo chamber filled with people who believe on faith.

    Not a shot. This sentence just more accurately reflects what I feel and how the conversation has been up to now.
    No one expects you to handle anyone with kid gloves. The conversation has been very respectful and people sharing their opinions without anyone else saying, why do you believe in fairy tales if you can't prove them. All was well and good till you case in pounding your chest like Godzilla about how proud an atheist you are, and spouting what you feel you need to with out reading what people are saying.

    For example. HR said this:
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Logic is about definitions. For there to be a finite, you must also have the infinite. The infinite is unexplainable, undefinable and something you cannot personify. Then, by definition, the infinite must be a higher being. It is "God" per se? Who knows? I happen to believe there is a God who got this whole ball of wax started.

    I don't look at Faith as a competition of who's right or "logically superior" to someone else. Perhaps there's our fundamental difference. Faith (or lack of) is a deeply personal issue, and while it's being discussed openly here, isn't something one should force on to one another.

    Faith is the absence of logic so of course, as someone who sees Faith through the prism of logic, cannot understand.
    Instead reading what he was saying, or trying to understand what he meant, you went on for 3 pages of "you said faith is the absence of logic, faith is the absence of logic nana nana boo boo stick your head in doodoo"

    As HR pointed out, faith is a deep personal issue, no one has told you you don't have a good reason not to believe what you want, you should be respectful at least to others about what they believe.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,921
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  4. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,526
    Well said NC
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Well said NC
    Disagree.




  6. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    You know the point I am trying to make. I am someone (and something a human) my computer is something.
    I know the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, it is a terrible point. If you say something can't come from nothing then say a god can come from nothing, you are being intellectually dishonest. It is a logical fallacy. In logic, one does not get to make rules and then break them, let alone immediately/in the same breath. Whether or not a god is a something or a someone doesn't make a difference, because a someone is a type of something.

    It's like saying, "An animal can't have its heart stop beating and still be alive, but parrots can," and then when someone points out how a parrot is an animal, you say, "No, a parrot is a BIRD," as if all birds aren't animals. All someones are also somethings. Your, Sirdowski's, and Jonboy's point is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I think it started right about here: Please let the board know when you have attained your Nobel Prize.
    I stick by that statement because it made a quick point and, at worst, was (to use HR's word) "snarky." So I'll say now what I said to HR: It may have been snarky but it was also true. If someone (in this case, Sirdowski) thinks it's "easy" to prove a god exists using nature/science, that someone will get a Nobel Prize and deserve it. The fact he hasn't yet suggests it's not so "easy." (FWIW, he all but said afterward that it was probably not the best choice of words for him.)

    A little bit different from "Cool, remind me to care what you think."

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    All was well and good till you case in pounding your chest like Godzilla about how proud an atheist you are, and spouting what you feel you need to with out reading what people are saying.
    Like Godzilla? Ha. Sure, I'm a proud atheist. But I'm not confident that I'm right. I'm confident that I'm being rational and logical while a few others here are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    As HR pointed out, faith is a deep personal issue, no one has told you you don't have a good reason not to believe what you want, you should be respectful at least to others about what they believe.
    Just because something is a "deep personal issue" doesn't mean others don't have the right to comment on it, or that the issue should not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as anything else would be when it's the topic on the table.

    I agree that the commentary/scrutiny should be respectful, and I think I have been here. (I haven't been perfectly polite, but neither have you and few people ever are.) But if believers take offense when someone calls their belief/faith "illogical" at the same time they insist that logic cannot be applied to their belief/faith, then they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's something that deserves to be called out.
    Last edited by akashicrecorder; 05-28-2013 at 06:25 PM.




  7. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,744

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    I know the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, it is a terrible point. If you say something can't come from nothing then say a god can come from nothing, you are being intellectually dishonest. It is a logical fallacy. In logic, one does not get to make rules and then break them, let alone immediately/in the same breath. Whether or not a god is a something or a someone doesn't make a difference, because a someone is a type of something.
    Okay, well than if wasn't God, what is science's explanation for something coming from nothing?

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    It's like saying, "An animal can't have its heart stop beating and still be alive, but parrots can," and then when someone points out how a parrot is an animal, you say, "No, a parrot is a BIRD," as if all birds aren't animals. All someones are also somethings. Your, Sirdowski's, and Jonboy's point is invalid.
    It's not like that at all, but since you seem to think that's the only point we've got and you can call it "invalid" as if that means your right, that's cool.


    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Like Godzilla? Ha. Sure, I'm a proud atheist. But I'm not confident that I'm right. I'm confident that I'm being rational and logical while a few others here are not.
    So you're the authority on who is being logical and rational? Or is it if someone doesn't agree with you, than they're not being logical or rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Just because something is a "deep personal issue" doesn't mean others don't have the right to comment on it, or that the issue should not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as anything else would be when it's the topic on the table.
    Just remember that when you jump down others throat about their comments on matters you care about i.e gay marriage, political correctness etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    I agree that the commentary/scrutiny should be respectful, and I think I have been here. (I haven't been perfectly polite, but neither have you and few people ever are.) But if believers take offense when someone calls their belief/faith "illogical" at the same time they insist that logic cannot be applied to their belief/faith, then they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's something that deserves to be called out.
    I don't take offense when anybody calls my faith illigical, I haven't taken offense to anything you said. I just didn't have an interest in talking to someone who says the are not trying to offend me and then finishes that post with the equivalent of "you believe in fairy tales ( what an idiot)". But tell me something, to have faith is to believe in something that you can't prove or cannot see, than by that definition isn't your faith in how the universe came to be "illogical"?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Okay, well than if wasn't God, what is science's explanation for something coming from nothing?
    The prevailing theory is a Penrose-Hawking singularity. Essentially, there's a mathematical model of the big bang, or singularity theorem, that shows the big bang caused itself. It was able to cause itself, as it's supposed it existed in "nothing".


    Just replace "god" with "singularity":


    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post

    Jonboy pointed it out and Sirdowski did before him. I remain unimpressed. Because the second you say, "Nothing spontaneously acts without something to cause that action" and then say there IS something that spontaneously acts without something to cause that action (god) your point is invalid.
    As a matter of fact, science tells us that everything in the universe has a cause, but the universe itself did not.

    How, by your own standards, is this not "invalid" also?



    The point to take away from this is not that both views are simply invalid because they invoke an uncaused cause, but that for there to be a causal chain at all, there had to be an uncaused cause . This fact alone should plainly show you that you are climbing a slippery slope with your insistence on logic. I've tried to show you that, but you are unable to see the forest for the trees.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  9. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,526
    To the point that people here took offense to something.

    I didn't take offense to anything that was said either.

    My issue is the need by aka (or anyone for that matter) to "prove" others wrong. Very curious and, in a small way, sad. A good debate is wonderful. Being lectured? Not so much.

    I imagine this is exactly how my gay friends feel when someone tells them how "wrong" they are.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  10. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,526
    I seem to recall that two of the most intelligent scientists in human history, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, were both religious.

    Both thought they were attempting to figure out the mind of God.

    Both thought the universe was so splendid, so spectacular that it could only have been the work of something divine.

    Guess they're just "illogical".
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,921
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I seem to recall that two of the most intelligent scientists in human history, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, were both religious.

    Both thought they were attempting to figure out the mind of God.

    Both thought the universe was so splendid, so spectacular that it could only have been the work of something divine.

    Guess they're just "illogical".
    Which is an interesting perspective all of its own.

    Two gents that were spiritual (I prefer the term spiritual over religious) in their own right, yet still sought out answers through physical and theoretical science to explain the (at the time) unexplainable.

    Good point HR.

    I think being spiritual doesnt mean that you have to throw away science. Clearly, if there is a divine something they or it doesnt have a problem with mankind probing the physical world to understand their surroundings and place in nature. And vice-versa, being scientific doesnt mean that you cannot be spiritual.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  12. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,526
    Yes, spiritual is a much better word.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    HR.

    I think being spiritual doesnt mean that you have to throw away science. Clearly, if there is a divine something they or it doesnt have a problem with mankind probing the physical world to understand their surroundings and place in nature. And vice-versa, being scientific doesnt mean that you cannot be spiritual.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Exactly.

    Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, and are, I would argue, inextricably intertwined.

    The simplest analogy possible summarizes the issue, IMHO, perfectly:

    Imagine a team of Nobel laureate scientists who set out to prove what a letter written to one of their colleagues says. The chemist, would analyze the composition, the physicist it's movement through space-time, the biologist maybe would analyze for some sort of organic footprint, all this only to find they are powerless to accomplish what they set out to prove: The meaning of the message is not found in the physics and chemistry of the paper ink.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  14. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I seem to recall that two of the most intelligent scientists in human history, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, were both religious.

    Both thought they were attempting to figure out the mind of God.

    Both thought the universe was so splendid, so spectacular that it could only have been the work of something divine.

    Guess they're just "illogical".
    Sorry HR but Einstein was hardly religious. He grew up as an atheist in a non-religious home but was exposed to both Catholic and Judaic schools. He didn't believe in God. He believed everything evolved around and was proven by equations. He couldn't accept that there was a beginning because that would say there was a God who created it.

    As for Jesus, he believed that he existed as a good prophet and teacher but he never accepted him as his Lord and Savior.


    Then Hubble proved the universe was expanding and Einstein changed to believing
    in an impersonal but not personal God so that is hardly being religious much less spiritual. He still believed there was no evil. Those who say they don't believe in evil are simply saying they don't believe in a God. They can't have it both ways.

    In the end, Einstein wasn't even a theist much less religious. Agnostic is the closest you could call him. This is hardly religous.

    __________________________________________
    On Spinoza, Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
    _____________________________________________





    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 05-29-2013 at 12:46 AM.




  15. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,921
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post

    Sorry HR but Einstein was hardly religious. He grew up as an atheist in a non-religious home but was exposed to both Catholic and Judaic schools. He didn't believe in God. He believed everything evolved around and was proven by equations. He couldn't accept that there was a beginning because that would say there was a God who created it.

    As for Jesus, he believed that he existed as a good prophet and teacher but he never accepted him as his Lord and Savior.

    Then Hubble proved the universe was expanding and Einstein changed to believing
    in an impersonal but not personal God so that is hardly being religious much less spiritual. He still believed there was no evil. Those who say they don't believe in evil are simply saying they don't believe in a God. They can't have it both ways.

    In the end, Einstein wasn't even a theist much less religious. Agnostic is the closest you could call him. This is hardly religous.

    __________________________________________
    On Spinoza, Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
    _____________________________________________

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
    If you were to remove the Christian "good vs evil" rhetoric then you might be able to objectively look at someone else's spirituality for what they perceive it to be.

    You're unable to do that.

    And I don't mean that as a sleight against you, Trap. However, that is what you believe. You believe in good vs evil, heaven and hell, god and satan. Being spiritual and in some cases, religious, doesn't mean that you have to believe in good vs evil.

    It is just unfair and irresponsible to try and apply Christian foundations to someone who may not acknowledge those foundations.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Last edited by wickedsolo; 05-29-2013 at 06:41 AM.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland