0

Kill a thread? No, just add a little grist. There are those who don't like when there are others who disagree with both sides of the argument.

I've been dismissed by those who don't want to hear what they don't know how to argue. They know their two sides (God vs Science) very well, but God forbid (to use a phrase) that someone should not believe in either. They just don't know how to deal with that. So, rather than listen and question (and perhaps expand their thinking) they simply dismiss the "intruder" using the same old techniques they've used before and will use again.

I was "there" a long time ago, with others prodding at my staunch beliefs. I resisted as well. But some of it sunk in, and over time I learned how much I didn't know or even suspect, and how narrow my point of view had been.

Now that I recognize this in myself, I can see it in others. I've grown some by the good grace of others who took the time with me, and I'm just returning the favor. Some of you will learn something new in spite of yourselves. Age is not a factor. I' know genius children and imbecile adults. Most of us are a combination of the 4 no matter our age, and I've yet to meet someone who knew as much as they appeared to think they did. If they know that, great. If not, they are a chore. You know which you are, but those of you who don't admit it to yourselves don't have a chance, yet.

Someone said I don't understand science. That's a rather hilarious dismissal of me and my thoughts.

I know exactly what science is, at the risk of defending my position, let me give a very brief explanation: It's a tool for understanding what we don't know. It is investigation, method, and developement of new methods of investigation from that which is observed with the purpose of being able to demonstrate (prove) cause and effect.

I certainly don't mean to say that all science is religion and all scientists are believers in that religion.

But I do know that that many people essentially worship at the altar of science as the ultimate solution to all problems that man faces, from solving the questions of his origin and source, to solving the issues that confront him. In other words, pretty much everything that Religion attempts to do, all to often by invoking the notion of a caring nurturing wrathful God.

In both cases, people are looking "elsewhere" for that which is within them.

0

Apparently you insult what you can't understand.

Well, you had not even bothered to introduce any content to the discussion at all. You didn't even refute any specific claim. You just jumped in and told everyone they didn't know what they were talking about. Even with that longer previous post, you have said very little to support or explain any thoughts you have on the matter. If your only contribution is "ur all dum", you can't really expect anyone to place much value on your comment.

0

Well, you had not even bothered to introduce any content to the discussion at all. You didn't even refute any specific claim. You just jumped in and told everyone they didn't know what they were talking about. Even with that longer previous post, you have said very little to support or explain any thoughts you have on the matter. If your only contribution is "ur all dum", you can't really expect anyone to place much value on your comment.

My only contribution was "ur all dum"? That's not what went on.

I can't put a lifetime of thought into a post. But I put a thought or two into each of them.

But because my thought is that Science and Religion are both looking at the picture in the wrong manner (much like Republicans and Democrats) ... and stopping their thought in that narrow channel of discussion, well, my thoughts don't fit in that narrow channel.

I would expect someone to say "Huh?" or, "What are you talking about?" or some such.

There's plenty in what I've written, but it seems you don't agree, so you don't want to respond or investigate.

Human nature is very quick to dismiss the edifice of thought it has precariously built its sanity upon. We live in insane times largely because of this.

1

My only contribution was "ur all dum"? That's not what went on.

I can't put a lifetime of thought into a post. But I put a thought or two into each of them.

Please point out just one thought that you have put into any of your posts

But because my thought is that Science and Religion are both looking at the picture in the wrong manner (much like Republicans and Democrats) ... and stopping their thought in that narrow channel of discussion, well, my thoughts don't fit in that narrow channel.

Please include an example so we might see what you are talking about - something concrete that you can point to and say - this is how science/religion is looking in the wrong manner -- it would also help to give us a concrete example of the correct manner

I would expect someone to say "Huh?" or, "What are you talking about?" or some such.

If you expect it of us, then why not share with us what you are talking about? We do not read minds so we have no clues to your argument or even if you have one

There's plenty in what I've written, but it seems you don't agree, so you don't want to respond or investigate.

There is not a single idea in what you have written - therefore there is nothing to respond to or investigate. State something. Make an argument (ie state your thesis, offer supporting evidence <cites would be nice>, wrap it up with a cogent summary of where you think others see something incorrectly.

Human nature is very quick to dismiss the edifice of thought it has precariously built its sanity upon. We live in insane times largely because of this.

I will start with this one as it is your most recent post. You have provided no edifice of thought; you have provided no thought what so ever. You have merely stated that we are wrong and you are correct and that you have put much more thought into the world than we have.

Brainsmall, I am trying to be patient with you so that I can understand what you are trying to tell us.

Religious types (scientists too, science is just a different religion) all NEED their beliefs, which is why they fight anyone who contradicts them. This fighting to hold on is what keeps them from looking deeper and actually learning to think for themselves.

Please provide supporting evidence for these thesis':
1) science is a religion
2) scientists fight anyone who contradicts them
3) there is something deeper that you are aware of that scientists are not
4) scientists do not think for themselves

Where'd it all come from? Go take a look at ALL of it, then you'll know. Until you can do that, your discussion is trivial, when you can do that, you won't be having this discussion.

All of what? When we see it what will we know? Why is our discussion trivial?

all self referrential / circular bs with one purpose only. to keep you in the fold.

Please specify which bs you are speaking of, what fold we are being kept in.
I am really interested in what you are thinking but you offer no clues that I can follow.

Edited by mike_2000_17: Fixed formatting

Votes + Comments
My thoughts as well
0

If you need me to point out "just one thought that .. (I) ... have put in to any of ... (my) posts) then you simply have not read them with an eye to seeing, rather, you didn't like what i said and nothing came through.

I won't play that game. If you don't want to read what is written, then you're not going to see anything here either.

You've asked, but I believe you've written me to bury me rather than to hear me out. I will make an attempt to clarify, but wonder if you really want to hear it.

People tend to adhere to the "two factions" process. Life goes merrily along with people rarely considering that there is a third way of seeing things, or a fourth, and so on, and that each of them is at least as valid as any other, except the one that is right and true.

Granted, life is not "black and white" for most people, there is an incredible mixing of beliefs and ideas, but generally they fall into an either this or that mindset.

As an example of religion, Christian God-purveyors present a burning-bush, Jesus - as the immaculatly conceived son of a caring god who made the world and all within it in 6 days. They then want the rest of us to live according to a set of moral, values and principles that were supposedly written by those who had association with, well, God, given that Jesus is not only the son of God, but God himself, as well. They want us to believe this why, I've never quite figured out. But based on these beliefs they feel quite justified in any action that they commit, God is on their side. History is chock full of mans atrocities in the name of God.

Science on the other hand would have us believe that "this all" just happened to come about in accord with cause and effect. The initial cause is, of course, the big question, the one that (finally) has (some) scientists thinking. Their problem is that they want to reduce "everything" to observable cause and effect. Further, they believe that anything that is done in the name of science is "good". An example of where it starts breaking down is in the diversity of crops we are losing to GMOs. But by no means does science only have it's hand in our food chain. Science pervades society and has given problems that one could argue far outweigh the benefits.

Man is an explorer. Science is a tool of exploration. I don't ask that he stop.

Christians cannot doubt God, or they aren't believers, and have lost the benefits of their belief (the comfort they feel). So they aren't ever going to let go of their beliefs.

Scientists have the best chance of coming upon new information and forming new beliefs, but it's tough for them, because they believe so strongly in the principle of science itself that they cannot easily explore that which does not lend itself to the tools they have. Scientists tend to think inside the box of science as the only thing that matters.

The fold.. ah yes, the fold. Well, for the religious, it's the fold of belief with promise of a reward for that belief. Easy to control, and very lucrative for those at the top (of the religion or the mechanism that uses it to further their agenda.

For the scientists, it's the fold of self-righteous denial that anything but science (that which can be proven) is of importance, and again, very lucrative. Cell phone usage comes to mind, since we can't "prove" it's damaging to the users, well, ... there you go. Phamacueticals and the medical profession in general also come to mind.

Science is driven by the profit motive. People worship what they see, not the underlying premise of science itself. They worship what they are told to worship, and spend where they are told to spend, and forget what they are told to forget.

Ultimately it's all a show driven by profit motive. There is no doubt in my mind that there was (essentially) a profit motive behind the writing of the bible, and who can argue with the wealth of the Vatican or the power of the church? Likewise, science, while it has wonderous potential, utlitmately is little more than a pawn in the bigger game of .. where's the buck?

Don't get me wrong, I love science, to a point. But humans are not robots, yet, in blind obedience to scientific endeavor, I'm afraid that scientific minds may well be the cause of the end of man, because scientific minds have too little grasp of the intangible and how to use it.

So to posit a new theory... what if it's not .. God made the earth in 6 days, and it's not ... Man evolved over bazillions of ... whatever ... but ... Man himself is whatever it is that one might call God, and all of this that science is finding is just his (Mans / Gods) imagination .. playing iteself out.

As a theory, I could go on with it. I have plenty of others. But they are not "in the channel" and it's been agreed that only that which is in the channel is worthy of arguing. When one has let go of ones need to be right one can entertain an infinity of notions.

In doing so, one comes to see how others cling to thier beliefs. And one comes to see why.

0

You've asked, but I believe you've written me to bury me rather than to hear me out. I will make an attempt to clarify, but wonder if you really want to hear it.
<snip>

On the contrary, that was a reasoned and well-written post worth reading. Had you posted that earlier, in lieu of the snide condescension, you would not have faced such hostility.

0

Wow... this thread is still going strong? Cool.
Is anyone else standing up for God, as I did?

we went past that topic a looooooooooooong time ago ;)

0

Wow... this thread is still going strong? Cool.
Is anyone else standing up for God, as I did?

What? This thread is about God???
:P

0

Oops! BrianSmall - for some reason, I kept reading that as BrainSmall and I could not understand why anyone would call themselves that??

Thank you for posting your beliefs. There were some things in there I agree with and some things that I disagree with, but there is nothing to argue about. Beliefs require no proof nor any dis-proofs - they are just what they are.

0

I never mean to be snide and condescending. I'm blunt by nature, what's the point otherwise? Say it, or shut up about it, that's me. But I don't wish to alienate or offend.

On the other hand, I live surrounded by insanity and have to wonder if it's them or me. After all, I am the one, reasoned or not, who seems a poor fit to the process going on around me, while others don't seem to notice, or, more precisely, don't often see or discuss it in my terms.

It's hard to know where to start when there really isn't a lot of common ground between my thinking and that of the group I encounter.

Human nature being what it is, (without needing to think about it,) people know myriad tricks to sabatoge you when they don't want to hear what you're saying. I am not exempt from this learned behavior, it is part of our survival mechanism. It (at least) helps us to focus on Our personal path rather than get off course for each new thought that comes along.

While we are young and feel a need to defend ourselves without knowing why, this process serves its purpose, particularly in a cut throat world where it's every man for himself.

But it does not ultimately work in our favor. As we grow older and more reasoned, this ingrained behavior works against further developement.

When ones ideas go against the common grain, there is no easy way to bring attention to them, particularly when the audience has an investment in their beliefs. Which is the case, most peoples sense of self and process is (of course) wrapped up in their beliefs, so any threat to their beliefs is a threat to them. Of course they fight.

But when one no longer places great import on ones rigid set of beliefs one can get on with the process of really searching for truth.

0

Well there are beliefs, then there is reasoning. We can agree that certain behaviors occur, but not necessarily as to what they mean.

I don't think it's a matter having the final say (or being right) but of encountering new thoughts and perspectives in order to flush out wrong thinking within ourselves. Without this, what are we?

0

Only too true - you can only look at a watch for so long, guessing at how it works, before you have to open it up and look.

0

@Christina....if God wanted us to go to heaven...why did he bother create the earth?

This thread just won't die. *flogs dead horse*

God originally diddn't want us to end up in heaven hence the garden of eden which pretty much was heaven until Adam and even messed up.

0

Zandiago brings up a good point. Lasher, that makes no logical sense whatsoever. Why would a god create this world as an intermediary? What would be the purpose? Why not just create people in heaven?

Better yet.. Why create us at all?

0

Nothing is ever really mentioned about his reason for creating us. In fact there is alot not known about why he has done anything in a particular way. The whole basis of a christians faith is trusting that he knows what he is doing. Who knows maybe it was a bet between two rival "Gods" about who could create the better universe.

As i said before however the original plan was not to create man to end up in heaven. Really there is no proper mention of heaven being an actual place until well after the first sin.

Another explanition could be that the heaven is question does not exist yet. If you read through revalation and the second coming of Jesus it talks about the creation of a new heaven.

0

Another explanition could be that the heaven is question does not exist yet.

If there is to be a new one...there must have been an old one?

0

well... because haven is a punishment for adam and eve's mistake... there wasn't intended to be an intermediary...

0

Really there is no proper mention of heaven being an actual place until well after the first sin.

heaven=garden of eden (in a sort of way)

0

Heaven is a punishment for Adam and Eve's mistake? How? Earth was not originally created to be 'heaven'. In the bible it is quite clear that god created the earth mainly for humans.

But why? Why create the Universe? What purpose does it serve? And why so big? Why make humans so flawed? It doesn't make sense.. where did God come up with such an idea to begin with? How does he exist on his own? Why?

0

God is the alpha and the omega.. the creator of all things. God is the only creator. Thus, it follows that God must have created evil.

0

In order for choice to exist.. in order for us to be able to choose to do 'wrong' then this 'wrong' must exist.. For, how can we choose to do something that doesn't exist? Thus, God created 'wrong'.. God created 'evil'.

0

god didn't create evil... He created free will, each one decides what to do... and He decided to punish the wrong use of free will, what became to be known as evil

0

would some moderator just close this thread? maybe that way somebody else doesn't come and restarts the war in here... :D

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.