R
Rich
Guest
People don't kill due to love
Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Alisa
- Start date
People don't kill due to love
R
Rich
Guest
Shakespeare is inundated with examples.
I don't use him or that era as a yardstick
That is a very interesting point. Both love and religion lead to an irrational state of mind, that sometimes results in violent actions. I think the important distinction is that love is an indivual emotion while religion is a group emotion. When you have thousands or millions of people that all get irrational TOGETHER the results are much more destructive than what happens in, say, a love triangle gone wrong. It is like comparing the crusades to a scorned woman who murders her husband. Hardly on the same scale of importance.
R
Rich
Guest
But the scorned woman murders out of hatred not love
M
Mike375
Guest
That was a slip of the tongue or speed typing
Having said that it would normally not be explainable but the key point is it/he/she could do what we could not do.
Consider a hypothetical. We have a superman who can rub his hands togther with such speed and pressure the friction gets them up to 2000*C. He can melt steel with his hands, burn trees down and whatever.
He is residing down in the jungles in Sth America and the natives relate stories about him, which of course you totally disbelieve. However, one day you get to meet it/he/she and see what it does. Now you can explain it was friction which can generate with his hands. But if you never met it you would spend forever looking for another solution.
Having said that it would normally not be explainable but the key point is it/he/she could do what we could not do.
Consider a hypothetical. We have a superman who can rub his hands togther with such speed and pressure the friction gets them up to 2000*C. He can melt steel with his hands, burn trees down and whatever.
He is residing down in the jungles in Sth America and the natives relate stories about him, which of course you totally disbelieve. However, one day you get to meet it/he/she and see what it does. Now you can explain it was friction which can generate with his hands. But if you never met it you would spend forever looking for another solution.
M
Mike375
Guest
Love is the trigger. Could be love that is not returned. Unrequited love can develop to a crime of passion
R
Rich
Guest
It's not love, like I said hatred, revenge etc., not love
You are making my argument for me, even though you don't realize it. Let me change your story a bit to help you understand. Replace the supernatural being in your story with anything that scientists can't currently explain (pick one: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, how snakes evolved into reptiles, whatever). In your story, "one day you get to meet it". It the real world, that is called collecting evidence and developing a scientific theory that explains whatever it is that was previously not understood. Now you can explain "it" (whatever "it" was)! But if you never did the research to figure it out, you would have spent your whole life assuming that god did it, and would never come any closer to understanding anything.
M
Mike375
Guest
M
Mike375
Guest
No one is suggesting that research is not done. But what you are saying is that the explanation can never be...it was superman....Therefore if it is superman you will reject it
On the contrary, I am suggesting that if the explanation truly was supernatural - it was superman - then research would show that to be the case. Like I said before, scientific research in the past has never come to that conclusion about anything before. I am not saying that it never will, however, I think it is extremely unlikely that it will.
I also think it is very interesting that those with "faith" often claim that not only can we not prove that god exists, but that we shouldn't seek to prove or disprove his existence, and even go so far as to say he is "hiding" his existence from us, and the LACK of evidence for his existence is then paradoxically construed as evidence FOR his existence.
But lets consider this. Say some researcher published an article tomorrow saying that he was able to measure some aspect of god's influence on the world. Do you think the faithful would refute that evidence as energetically as they refute all of the scientific evidence for evolution?
M
Mike375
Guest
On the contrary, I am suggesting that if the explanation truly was supernatural - it was superman - then research would show that to be the case. Like I said before, scientific research in the past has never come to that conclusion about anything before. I am not saying that it never will, however, I think it is extremely unlikely that it will.
And because while ever there is no explanation it will never be conceded that a supernatural could be involved.
I also think it is very interesting that those with "faith" often claim that not only can we not prove that god exists, but that we shouldn't seek to prove or disprove his existence, and even go so far as to say he is "hiding" his existence from us, and the LACK of evidence for his existence is then paradoxically construed as evidence FOR his existence.
That is from the religious end of town. As to "hiding His existence" that relates to the faith issue. Remember that with Christianity the ticket to Heaven is not by good deeds.
But lets consider this. Say some researcher published an article tomorrow saying that he was able to measure some aspect of god's influence on the world. Do you think the faithful would refute that evidence as energetically as they refute all of the scientific evidence for evolution?
They would treat it the same way as the evolutionists would treat the Bible bashers doing the same thing from their end.
And because while ever there is no explanation it will never be conceded that a supernatural could be involved.
I also think it is very interesting that those with "faith" often claim that not only can we not prove that god exists, but that we shouldn't seek to prove or disprove his existence, and even go so far as to say he is "hiding" his existence from us, and the LACK of evidence for his existence is then paradoxically construed as evidence FOR his existence.
That is from the religious end of town. As to "hiding His existence" that relates to the faith issue. Remember that with Christianity the ticket to Heaven is not by good deeds.
But lets consider this. Say some researcher published an article tomorrow saying that he was able to measure some aspect of god's influence on the world. Do you think the faithful would refute that evidence as energetically as they refute all of the scientific evidence for evolution?
They would treat it the same way as the evolutionists would treat the Bible bashers doing the same thing from their end.
dan-cat
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 11:31
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,433
I think you'll find that the concept of love is an integral part of most religions. Arguably the tool used to justify the destruction you speak of.
Religion itself is not an emotion. It taps into a shared emotion.
I will concede right here right now that there is a theoretical possibility that the supernatural COULD be involved. Does that make you happy?
However, given that there is no evidence to date that anything supernatural has ever existed, much less a god, I think the odds are beyond vanishingly small that the supernatural is involved.
In any case, even if you do believe in the supernatural, that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations. I think that too often people use the supernatural explanation to obstruct scientific inquiry (look no further than the intelligent design movement, which seeks to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools). If religous people truly believe that god exists, then it makes no sense to obstruct scientific research, because science only seeks to discover the truth.
CraigDolphin
GrumpyOldMan in Training
- Local time
- Today, 03:31
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 1,582
I am hoping, assuming, that points 2-4 are not being attributed to me so I will refrain from commenting on them or your responses (much as I would like to I just don't have the time).
Point 1.
Your 'response' in point 1 is to an argument that I never put forward and isn't even present in the preceding line. I never said that it was proof that God exists. This is especially egregious since I've made the point, many times, that I was not offering that as objective evidence of the existence of God and further, and that I believe that no such evidence exists, or is even possible to obtain. You appear to be consistently missing the point I'm trying to make and focussing on potential arguments that I have never made on this thread.
Point 5
The same thing for point 5. The contention that you're responding to makes no claim about this being proof of anything. It is a statement of faith only. Yet you react as if this were somehow presented as 'evidence'. It was not.
Point 6,
Your response appears to be a demand that I speculate about the motivations of a being who could create the universe, who exists outside of space and time, and who I can't even remotely qualify to speak for as a representative. So, I decline to do so.
That said, I'm not exactly sure how your questions about God's motivations actually are intended to rebut the logic of my argument, so I begin to hope that maybe you are beginning to see that I'm right about that. If they are intended as a rebuttal of some kind, then it's either very obtuse, or a misdirection used when no relevant, logical counterpoint to my proposition came to mind.
Point 7
Carl Sagan (a fairly famous atheist himself) once wrote that 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence'. Yet you keep referring to the lack of evidence as a reason that you believe that there's no God. I think Carl encapsulated the logic perfectly but you can feel free to believe otherwise if you like. Science can only fail to disprove something, rather than prove something. So, why can't you recognize that the same inherant logical issue exists for anyone wanting to 'prove' the existence of God versus someone wanting to 'dis-prove' the same? The former is both impossible and logically incompatible with scientific method, while the latter is logically consistent with scientific method, but is also impossible since God exists beyond space and time. And whatever God's motivations might be, they are not a relevant riposte to this logical proposition.
General
You keep demanding 'evidence for'. I say none exists. I further say that no human test can ever prove, nor disprove, God's existence. You contend otherwise, yet offer no example of such a test to disprove me. Why? If you're right you should be able to cut me off at the knees with a single devastating example that I can't explain away with a rationale for how it fails to definitely dis-prove God's existence.
You repeatedly demand the impossible (proof for the existence of God) to advance an argument that I have never made, and that I don't think can ever reasonably be made. I have no interest in tilting at windmills. Especially windmills not of my choosing and irrelevant to the question at hand.
Science can only describe/explain phenomena that exist within the limitations of space and time. Beyond those limits, science cannot go except in speculation. That's reality, as I see it. If you disagree then fine. Show me where I'm wrong. My rationale: God, if he exists, created space and time. He isn't limited by them. Science can NEVER get a handle on God. He's beyond the scope of our very existence. He's not some clever fellow playing harps on a cloud who we can send a plane up to photograph; he's not some cowardly alien 'hiding' behind Alpha Centauri; he's GOD.
Now, before you respond again that I'm not offering you any evidence, let me be very clear. I am not trying to offer this as evidence for the existence of God.
I am only explaining to you, as carefully as I can, that science cannot prove, nor disprove God's existence. Science does not even operate at the level where you could find such evidence (beyond space and time). Where science stops, philosophy and religion start. Using scientific evidence (limited by physics, space and time) to argue either for or against the existence of God is therefore a nonsensical proposition.
It's like the game pieces in Monopoly trying to explain the game's existence solely by interpreting the rules of the game itself. The existence of the game itself is incontrovertible but the why is a mystery to the game pieces. From within the game itself, the flow of time brings about a progression of events that are dictated by certain game rules. The rules themselves can be quantified and measured, but the ultimate point of the rules and the game's existence is far larger than the sum of the rules, however inexorable and unchangeable they appear to be after the game has been manufactured and sold. The idea of there being a game creator isn't anywhere to be seen in the rules themselves, but we know it remains true nonetheless (because WE are not limited by our frame of reference as the game pieces are).
In the parallel question of God's existence, the game rules are parallel to the rules of space and time (physics, chemistry, etc), we are the game pieces with the limited frame of reference arguing about it all, and God is the creator of the game.
I believe in God. That is a choice I made when I was a teenager (I also had a non-religious upbringing incidentally). You are welcome to choose otherwise, as you wish, with my best wishes for whatever choice you make. I am not out to convert you, or even to make you sypathetic to my viewpoint on the matter. Yet I've seen the same evidence that you have, maybe more. I think I've demonstrated a fair understanding of evolutionary theory and have presented well-reasoned, logical arguments as to why my choice is really not that big a deal for reconciling with the lessons of science. I've also formed an opinion on where the limits of science are, and I have come to an opposite view as to the existence of God as you. Why does that seem to challenge you so greatly? Science is a wonderful tool. But it is not, and never will be, able to answer all the questions about the 'why' questions we will always continue to have.
I think that faith is a choice that people make in the absence of compelling contrary evidence. We have no evidence at all as to whether the universe came about somehow as a result of design, or by accident, or something else. I believe in God and I think it's design. You don't believe in God and say it must be 'extra-cosmic accident' or 'something unknown'. You will not even entertain the possibility of a God being the real explanation. The point is, your initial assumption about God shapes your interpretation of the facts. Neither explanation can be tested. Neither explanation constitutes proof of anything: and I've never claimed otherwise.
My faith does not contradict any of the findings of science, and nor should it. Likewise, none of the findings of science contradicts my faith in God's existence even if, occasionally, they force me to redefine my understanding of the world around me and my interpretation of the bible.
In fact, about the only thing on this thread that makes me a little nervous is that I appear to be on the same side of an argument as Mike375!
Well, if you understand my position at all, then you'd know that both the scenario, and the idea that I am somehow attacking evolutionary theory, are both quite ridiculous. I share your opinion that science is a laudable tool for discovery that should never be obstructed. I am embarassed that some people of faith react in fear to the idea of learning something unexpected and new.
I think folks who object to Dan_Cat's word 'arrogance' in this context are over-reacting a bit. Perhaps a less perjorative substitute would help, like 'hubris'?
Humanity tends to have a rather high opinion of itself despite all the evidence to the contrary. I concur with dan_cat here.
Point 1.
Your 'response' in point 1 is to an argument that I never put forward and isn't even present in the preceding line. I never said that it was proof that God exists. This is especially egregious since I've made the point, many times, that I was not offering that as objective evidence of the existence of God and further, and that I believe that no such evidence exists, or is even possible to obtain. You appear to be consistently missing the point I'm trying to make and focussing on potential arguments that I have never made on this thread.
Point 5
The same thing for point 5. The contention that you're responding to makes no claim about this being proof of anything. It is a statement of faith only. Yet you react as if this were somehow presented as 'evidence'. It was not.
Point 6,
Your response appears to be a demand that I speculate about the motivations of a being who could create the universe, who exists outside of space and time, and who I can't even remotely qualify to speak for as a representative. So, I decline to do so.
That said, I'm not exactly sure how your questions about God's motivations actually are intended to rebut the logic of my argument, so I begin to hope that maybe you are beginning to see that I'm right about that. If they are intended as a rebuttal of some kind, then it's either very obtuse, or a misdirection used when no relevant, logical counterpoint to my proposition came to mind.
Point 7
Carl Sagan (a fairly famous atheist himself) once wrote that 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence'. Yet you keep referring to the lack of evidence as a reason that you believe that there's no God. I think Carl encapsulated the logic perfectly but you can feel free to believe otherwise if you like. Science can only fail to disprove something, rather than prove something. So, why can't you recognize that the same inherant logical issue exists for anyone wanting to 'prove' the existence of God versus someone wanting to 'dis-prove' the same? The former is both impossible and logically incompatible with scientific method, while the latter is logically consistent with scientific method, but is also impossible since God exists beyond space and time. And whatever God's motivations might be, they are not a relevant riposte to this logical proposition.
General
You keep demanding 'evidence for'. I say none exists. I further say that no human test can ever prove, nor disprove, God's existence. You contend otherwise, yet offer no example of such a test to disprove me. Why? If you're right you should be able to cut me off at the knees with a single devastating example that I can't explain away with a rationale for how it fails to definitely dis-prove God's existence.
You repeatedly demand the impossible (proof for the existence of God) to advance an argument that I have never made, and that I don't think can ever reasonably be made. I have no interest in tilting at windmills. Especially windmills not of my choosing and irrelevant to the question at hand.
Science can only describe/explain phenomena that exist within the limitations of space and time. Beyond those limits, science cannot go except in speculation. That's reality, as I see it. If you disagree then fine. Show me where I'm wrong. My rationale: God, if he exists, created space and time. He isn't limited by them. Science can NEVER get a handle on God. He's beyond the scope of our very existence. He's not some clever fellow playing harps on a cloud who we can send a plane up to photograph; he's not some cowardly alien 'hiding' behind Alpha Centauri; he's GOD.
Now, before you respond again that I'm not offering you any evidence, let me be very clear. I am not trying to offer this as evidence for the existence of God.
I am only explaining to you, as carefully as I can, that science cannot prove, nor disprove God's existence. Science does not even operate at the level where you could find such evidence (beyond space and time). Where science stops, philosophy and religion start. Using scientific evidence (limited by physics, space and time) to argue either for or against the existence of God is therefore a nonsensical proposition.
It's like the game pieces in Monopoly trying to explain the game's existence solely by interpreting the rules of the game itself. The existence of the game itself is incontrovertible but the why is a mystery to the game pieces. From within the game itself, the flow of time brings about a progression of events that are dictated by certain game rules. The rules themselves can be quantified and measured, but the ultimate point of the rules and the game's existence is far larger than the sum of the rules, however inexorable and unchangeable they appear to be after the game has been manufactured and sold. The idea of there being a game creator isn't anywhere to be seen in the rules themselves, but we know it remains true nonetheless (because WE are not limited by our frame of reference as the game pieces are).
In the parallel question of God's existence, the game rules are parallel to the rules of space and time (physics, chemistry, etc), we are the game pieces with the limited frame of reference arguing about it all, and God is the creator of the game.
I believe in God. That is a choice I made when I was a teenager (I also had a non-religious upbringing incidentally). You are welcome to choose otherwise, as you wish, with my best wishes for whatever choice you make. I am not out to convert you, or even to make you sypathetic to my viewpoint on the matter. Yet I've seen the same evidence that you have, maybe more. I think I've demonstrated a fair understanding of evolutionary theory and have presented well-reasoned, logical arguments as to why my choice is really not that big a deal for reconciling with the lessons of science. I've also formed an opinion on where the limits of science are, and I have come to an opposite view as to the existence of God as you. Why does that seem to challenge you so greatly? Science is a wonderful tool. But it is not, and never will be, able to answer all the questions about the 'why' questions we will always continue to have.
I think that faith is a choice that people make in the absence of compelling contrary evidence. We have no evidence at all as to whether the universe came about somehow as a result of design, or by accident, or something else. I believe in God and I think it's design. You don't believe in God and say it must be 'extra-cosmic accident' or 'something unknown'. You will not even entertain the possibility of a God being the real explanation. The point is, your initial assumption about God shapes your interpretation of the facts. Neither explanation can be tested. Neither explanation constitutes proof of anything: and I've never claimed otherwise.
My faith does not contradict any of the findings of science, and nor should it. Likewise, none of the findings of science contradicts my faith in God's existence even if, occasionally, they force me to redefine my understanding of the world around me and my interpretation of the bible.
In fact, about the only thing on this thread that makes me a little nervous is that I appear to be on the same side of an argument as Mike375!
Well, if you understand my position at all, then you'd know that both the scenario, and the idea that I am somehow attacking evolutionary theory, are both quite ridiculous. I share your opinion that science is a laudable tool for discovery that should never be obstructed. I am embarassed that some people of faith react in fear to the idea of learning something unexpected and new.
I think folks who object to Dan_Cat's word 'arrogance' in this context are over-reacting a bit. Perhaps a less perjorative substitute would help, like 'hubris'?
Humanity tends to have a rather high opinion of itself despite all the evidence to the contrary. I concur with dan_cat here.
M
Mike375
Guest
I will concede right here right now that there is a theoretical possibility that the supernatural COULD be involved. Does that make you happy?
Yes it does for your sake as now your intellect will not be restricted to only one corner of the room.
However, given that there is no evidence to date that anything supernatural has ever existed, much less a god, I think the odds are beyond vanishingly small that the supernatural is involved.
Don't think so, just the opposite. The mysteries get deeper as time goes on. I am 60 and have been interested in both astronomy and evolution since I was a kid. In fact when I was at the catholic school I got my father to buy me Darwin's book. My father was not into the religion but my mother's brother just refused to hear about the book. Simply not on the agenda. Sound familiar?
In any case, even if you do believe in the supernatural, that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations.
I don't "believe in it"......it is a default position. I would prefer it not to be there because I don't like the idea of answering to a god. All evidence to me points to something supernatural being involved or having been involved. For example, I started as kid with all lights green on evolution. Later when I started to keep reptiles (plus other animals, their food) it raised issues to me with evolution.......that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations you say. Just the opposite. But I don't close my mind to a supernatural influence.
I think that too often people use the supernatural explanation to obstruct scientific inquiry (look no further than the intelligent design movement, which seeks to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools).
That is a religious/politcal issue. And remember that the evolution end of town want all reference to God removed so both sides are equally guilty.
If religous people truly believe that god exists, then it makes no sense to obstruct scientific research, because science only seeks to discover the truth.
See previous reply.
I am sure you have seen the line.....Faith can't be put in a test tube. That's why it shouldn't be put in a science class room.
Yes it does for your sake as now your intellect will not be restricted to only one corner of the room.
However, given that there is no evidence to date that anything supernatural has ever existed, much less a god, I think the odds are beyond vanishingly small that the supernatural is involved.
Don't think so, just the opposite. The mysteries get deeper as time goes on. I am 60 and have been interested in both astronomy and evolution since I was a kid. In fact when I was at the catholic school I got my father to buy me Darwin's book. My father was not into the religion but my mother's brother just refused to hear about the book. Simply not on the agenda. Sound familiar?
In any case, even if you do believe in the supernatural, that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations.
I don't "believe in it"......it is a default position. I would prefer it not to be there because I don't like the idea of answering to a god. All evidence to me points to something supernatural being involved or having been involved. For example, I started as kid with all lights green on evolution. Later when I started to keep reptiles (plus other animals, their food
) it raised issues to me with evolution.......that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations you say. Just the opposite. But I don't close my mind to a supernatural influence. I think that too often people use the supernatural explanation to obstruct scientific inquiry (look no further than the intelligent design movement, which seeks to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools).
That is a religious/politcal issue. And remember that the evolution end of town want all reference to God removed so both sides are equally guilty.
If religous people truly believe that god exists, then it makes no sense to obstruct scientific research, because science only seeks to discover the truth.
See previous reply.
I am sure you have seen the line.....Faith can't be put in a test tube. That's why it shouldn't be put in a science class room.
ShaneMan
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:31
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,224
I would agree with Dan. I must have misunderstood also because I thought you would referring to anyone who believed in a supreme being (and is a poorly educated American
)
Last edited:
M
Mike375
Guest
In fact, about the only thing on this thread that makes me a little nervous is that I appear to be on the same side of an argument as Mike375!
These long threads can be dangerous
As to educated people and God, the three cardiothoracic surgeons who started Australia's heart transplant unit were all deeply religious.
ShaneMan
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:31
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,224
Craig, I did not want to quote your whole post, due to it's length but I wanted to compliment you on a very well said post.
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 11:31
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,451
What is the difference between a Consultant Surgeon and God?
God doesn't think he's a Consultant surgeon.
As for love - love does not inspire people to invade and kill thousands in another country. Religion does.
Col
Similar threads
