Evidence of Deity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 11:13 pm
@jeeprs,
well I would like to try. If we do converse, we might need to take a little more time to explain our outlook clearly. As I said, my outlook is Buddhist, but I am really not that 'officially' religious. I stand up for spiritual values generally, and as far as I am concerned any faith is only worth its salt if it does the same. We have had many creation vs evolution debates on the forum. I am definitely not atheist, and don't believe that life bootstrapped itself into existence. On the other hand, I am certain that evolution occurred, and occurs.

But anyway - the thought this thread started with is, if there is a deity behind all of life, the universe, and everything, then He is of a very different order of being to anything we can see, measure, or find evidence for. I don't believe science can either prove or disprove such questions. I will say that.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 12:18 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;120030 wrote:
I think I detect in a lot of your contributions on religious topics a distinct anger about god or religion. I guess you have a reason for this. I personally don't feel the same way about it though. So this is not an analogy I would use. I have spent a lot of time studying religions and spiritual ideas. When I set out, I didn't realise what a large part of my life it would become. But one result is that I have 'made peace' with it. I know people are capable of stupid and dreadful things in the name of what they think of religion. But I just see that as the worst aspect of human nature now. I don't blame God for it any more.


It is not anger, it is annoyance. I feel that these belief systems hold back human development. In some ways I feel they devalue certain things that should not be devalued. They also tend to be the indirect causality for additional pain and suffering in the world, because of their flawed method to fix social problems. I can't help but be reminded by all the thousands of individuals whom were prosecuted for challenging these belief systems. Many of them lost their lives or were imprisoned unfairly, so how anyone can accept these systems and ignore their history is just another slap in the face towards those who suffered needlessly. These beliefs have not earned any right to have their hands in the making of laws or moral systems.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 12:38 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113428 wrote:

What are you looking for...?


The Way to Happiness is quite clear... Practically Invisible!
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 01:24 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;120077 wrote:
It is not anger, it is annoyance. I feel that these belief systems hold back human development. In some ways I feel they devalue certain things that should not be devalued. They also tend to be the indirect causality for additional pain and suffering in the world, because of their flawed method to fix social problems. I can't help but be reminded by all the thousands of individuals whom were prosecuted for challenging these belief systems. Many of them lost their lives or were imprisoned unfairly, so how anyone can accept these systems and ignore their history is just another slap in the face towards those who suffered needlessly. These beliefs have not earned any right to have their hands in the making of laws or moral systems.


As I said to you, somewhere else on the forum, I am not a churchgoer or member or religious in that sense. But at the same time, I have had experience of truly charitable and marvellous religious people, and have come to recognise the importance of spiritual principles such as those that underlie Christianity. So, yes, the inquisition jailed and tortured, and there are religious bigots, but also, this very day, there are millions of people being fed by charities, being cared for in religiously-inspired hospitals, and the like. Don't they count for anything? Why do you only see the negatives? And if Dawkins et al had their way, and the religious foundations of Western civilization were utterly abandoned, what value system would you replace it with?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 01:29 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;120002 wrote:
well it's enough for me. Maybe I'm easily satisfied.


Except that evolution is consistent with there being no God too. In other words, theism and evolution are logically independent of one another.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 01:55 am
@jeeprs,
Well I agree that the scientific account of the development of species can proceed without reference to Deity. However I don't believe that life is 'self-originating', on the basis that nothing in experience is self-originating. In this sense, I accept the various forms of the cosmological argument, that being has an original cause. However I realise this is not a scientific argument, really more of a value judgement, but one I am happy to make. So philosophically I find myself more aligned with theistic evolution (as distinct from creationism) which has been developed in various forms by various philosophers.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 02:02 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;120099 wrote:
Well I agree that the scientific account of the development of species can proceed without reference to Deity. However I don't believe that life is 'self-originating', on the basis that nothing in experience is self-originating. In this sense, I accept the various forms of the cosmological argument, that being has an original cause. However I realise this is not a scientific argument, really more of a value judgement, but one I am happy to make. So philosophically I find myself more aligned with theistic evolution (as distinct from creationism) which has been developed in various forms by various philosophers.


Well, that's right. If evolution were a theory of the origination of life, then it would be in conflict with theism (unless the theist retreated to a rather empty position). But a theory of how life originated from non-life is in the hopper (as far as I know). What if that were as well established as evolution. Then, what would you say?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 02:38 am
@jeeprs,
If one felt that the emergence of life itself in the warm pond was simply because the Universe was designed in such a way that life will arise wherever the conditions are appropriate, this still does not really undermine the idea of a grand design. Creationism is different. I think the problem with creationism is that it says that God does some parts, and other parts are the result of natural processes. I think that argument is completely without merit for all the reasons which Professor Dawkins has amply illustrated. But if you were to say that divine providence has structured the universe in such a way that life is inclined to proliferate wherever the conditions are suitable, I think this is a perfectly valid outlook on life. And in fact I think this is what mainstream theologians believe.

---------- Post added 01-15-2010 at 07:44 PM ----------

to which I should add, that the very best theoreticians cannot, as far as I can tell, provide a plausible account for how living cells spontaneously came about from non-living matter. If the 'principle of natural selection' applied to matter before it was actually alive, then it must be a metaphysical principle (because it cannot be ascribed in this case to any kind of behaviour) and therefore no longer a naturalistic explanation.

---------- Post added 01-15-2010 at 09:27 PM ----------

I also want to reflect a little on the different meanings religion has for different people. I think that many who can't stand it, associate it with rules and rituals and boring goody-two-shoes people who are holier than thou and want to tell you what to do all the time. I am pretty sure all Dawkins anti-religious writing is just that he thinks of it this way. He associates it with anti-science creationists, which is understandable, considering the types of experiences he has had.

But there are many other varieties of religious experience. I think most of the antireligious haven't had any of them. Religious experiences, or spiritual epiphanies, or whatever you want to call them, can be completely life-changing. I am sure many Christians really do experience a relationship with Christ, and I don't think they are kidding themselves or making it up.

Once you do start to open to the spiritual side of existence, your perception of it changes. I have been 'practising meditation' since the late 70's, and it has changed my attitude towards the whole thing. As I have said, I am not a church member or conventionally religious. But now I have much more affinity with religions - many of them, actually.

So if whenever you think of religion, you just think of harrasement or ancient superstition, just consider this might be just your experience talking to you. There are many for whom the experience is completely different.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 09:37 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;120095 wrote:
As I said to you, somewhere else on the forum, I am not a churchgoer or member or religious in that sense. But at the same time, I have had experience of truly charitable and marvellous religious people, and have come to recognise the importance of spiritual principles such as those that underlie Christianity. So, yes, the inquisition jailed and tortured, and there are religious bigots, but also, this very day, there are millions of people being fed by charities, being cared for in religiously-inspired hospitals, and the like. Don't they count for anything? Why do you only see the negatives? And if Dawkins et al had their way, and the religious foundations of Western civilization were utterly abandoned, what value system would you replace it with?


There are many non religious organizations that provide the same sort of thing. You think charity is religiously motivated? That it is exclusive to only those who are spiritual? No. You don't have to be religious at all to be a charitable person.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 09:54 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;120140 wrote:
There are many non religious organizations that provide the same sort of thing. You think charity is religiously motivated? That it is exclusive to only those who are spiritual? No. You don't have to be religious at all to be a charitable person.


Exactly.

Those charitable hospitals aren't a reflection on religion per se. They are a reflection on the people. And people, no matter their familiarity with religion, can be generous and caring.

But, to be consistent, we should also apply this logic to the reversal. We should not blame religion because of the past events which have happened in the name of religion. It isn't religion's fault, it's the people's fault!
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 10:37 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;120145 wrote:
But, to be consistent, we should also apply this logic to the reversal. We should not blame religion because of the past events which have happened in the name of religion. It isn't religion's fault, it's the people's fault!


Religion is created by people and given power by people. It is not an entity all by itself nor self created. Religion IS the people. Despite how bad that grammar is, if it isn't then what exactly is religion? Where did it come from and what does it want, if it is free from the influences of people?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 10:42 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;120154 wrote:
Religion is created by people and given power by people. It is not an entity all by itself nor self created. Religion IS the people. Despite how bad that grammar is, if it isn't then what exactly is religion? Where did it come from and what does it want, if it is free from the influences of people?


People often use abstract notions as scapegoats for their own transgressions.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 10:52 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;120155 wrote:
People often use abstract notions as scapegoats for their own transgressions.


Well I am not in disagreement with you on that statement. But what are you really saying? That religion is the scape goat for people to feel better about themselves? I don't understand.

Mostly of what I see it is the other way around. Religion seems to be this fusion of ideas that once practiced causes more harm than good. Just look at the Pat Robertson comment about Haiti.

They made a deal with the devil and that is why they are cursed.

Seriously? Haven't they been through enough, to dump a comment like that on them to say that they suffered an earthquake because of their own doing? Let alone the people of the past can make deals that you will have to suffer later? What?

This is why religion gets a bad name. It is the people who build it up and the people who give it power. People who once put into practice, creates more harm than good.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 11:07 am
@jeeprs,
Krumple wrote:
That religion is the scape goat for people to feel better about themselves? I don't understand.

People often proclaim that it is the fault of religion for why there have been so many wars fought in the name of God. People should instead take responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming religion. If you kill someone in the name of God, it is not religion's fault, it is your fault. Religion has been used as a scapegoat for many a person's transgressions.

Do you understand now?

Quote:

This is why religion gets a bad name.


Religions gets a bad name for many reasons, but one of the reasons is from what I just noted.
 
sword
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 11:20 am
@jeeprs,
In the beginning religion was not necessary, but because of man`s rebellion against the absolute (God) religion became necessary to reconcile man to his Creator.
Pagan idolatry causes hunger and misery but thank Luther`s Reformation people could see the Light of the Revelation. That`s why the most developed countries in the world are not pagan or atheistic (India, Albania, etc) but the countries that were illuminated by the truth of the Gospel. Sadly moral values are being forgotten because of esoteric and relativistic human secularism.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 12:03 pm
@sword,
sword;120167 wrote:
In the beginning religion was not necessary, but because of man`s rebellion against the absolute (God) religion became necessary to reconcile man to his Creator.
Pagan idolatry causes hunger and misery but thank Luther`s Reformation people could see the Light of the Revelation. That`s why the most developed countries in the world are not pagan or atheistic (India, Albania, etc) but the countries that were illuminated by the truth of the Gospel. Sadly moral values are being forgotten because of esoteric and relativistic human secularism.


That is male cow feces.

Sweden.

Adherents.com: Atheist Statistics | Agnostic
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 03:05 pm
@jeeprs,
Great stuff. Evangelical atheist on one side, evangelical christian on the other. Its groundhog day, all over again. Pity, it had been a nice thread.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 03:21 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;120256 wrote:
Great stuff. Evangelical atheist on one side, evangelical christian on the other. Its groundhog day, all over again. Pity, it had been a nice thread.


You're just jealous because my God could kick your God's ass any day. Even on groundhog day.
 
sword
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 09:55 pm
@jeeprs,
technology comes from science, science comes from reason, reason comes from the truth, and the Truth came from God. Besides the greatest works of art were not inspired by atheism but by religion (Leonardo Da Vinci, Raphael, Johan Sebastian Bach, Haendel, etc.)
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 10:32 pm
@jeeprs,
Don't forget Robert Mapplethorpe.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:11:36