Billy Graham at 87 - Part 2: From Religion to Cartography

Or maybe you’d be converted. :laughing:
Like these guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
I see absolutely no difference between religious messiah beliefs and the cargo cult folks. What ARE the differences? Can someone tell me?[/quote]
Convention over the long term has afforded certain religions with the mantle of respectability. But the emperor has no clothes. I said it before, earlier on in this thread: when it comes to what you believe, being a Presbyterian is no different from being part of a cargo cult, save for one thing–you can’t fault the cargo cultists for not knowing any better, but a Westerner in the year 2006?

Actually, you can’t even prove to me that you exist. You can only give evidence towards that end that requires me to doubt my own senses to disbelieve.[/quote]
I’ve just responded to your post. Does that prove it? And do you need to doubt your sense of sight at reading these words to believe that I exist? Your contention here makes no sense.[/quote]
Have you read Descartes? I could always borrow Bob’s argument.

How can I know that you actually replied to me? I could be insane, and this entire conversation is occuring in my head. I made you up, made the fourm up, and I’m still just lying in bed right now.

Now, where’s your proof that you exist?

Why should our God be kept out of science class? I mean my and your God as a possible explanation for the creation of life is just as possible as that it just “happened” randomly. The important thing is that the subject is treated scientifically, right? If a teacher wants to frame the discussion of the begining of life within the context of different beliefs and then discuss the science behind evolution, what’s wrong with that?— You only want your viewpoint mentioned. You can’t even stand the mere mention of religion in a school unless it is done negatively.

Personally, I don’t think creation should be taught in science class. But, then I don’t think evolution as it is being taught is right, either. I was told in my high school science class that evolution explained where man came from. It wasn’t presented as a theory, it was presented as fact.

Evolution is preached to classes by some teachers like a sermon. That’s not science. That’s indoctrination. Hypocrites.

It’s the atheist’s inability to cope with the beliefs of others that’s asinine. People want to express a belief in something publically? Nope, they can’t do it because you don’t believe it. You don’t want to hear others say they believe in God so you outlaw it by distorting the meaning of the Constitution.

No, “separation of church and state” has become the vehicle for every anti-religious nut to force their beliefs on the public. Acknowledging a belief in God publically? Well, now, we can’t have that. But the very act of using the state to restrict the church is a violation of the principle that is being used to drive the restricting. Pure irony.

Let me add that religionists who push their viewpoints on others and give not respect for other peoples’ viewpoints are equally asinine. But since we’re in the middle of an attack on Christianity, I’m focusing on the rude atheists rather than the rude theists.

Yeah, we want to believe something in private, it’s fine. We just can’t practice it publically. Really good argument.

Your use of the words bullshit and fucking have greatly improved the power and persuasiveness of your argument. I bow to your superiority here.

Can you believe that? That is truly fucking scary. Thank, erm, Beelzebub that I live in Canada.[/quote]
I wonder if there was anything cut out of that. If not, if the judge made a decision based on the judge’s own belief system, then I agree that this is not the place for religion.

On the other hand, if the judge was basing this decision on the beliefs of one of the parents-- then I can understand the ruling. Let’s say if one parent were Muslim and the other Christian and each wanted their child raised in their faith, I can understand the judge ruling to protect the interests of both faiths.

If one parent was a strong atheist, then I can see the judge ruling that the child should have time away from church. But what if one was a Christian, and one had no religious beliefs-- not atheist, not agnostic, just not thinking about it?

The state should have no official position on religion, but it should allow full rights to citizens to pursue what religion they believe. And it should protect those interests in the case of divorce.

Now, if it is the case of an atheist being discriminated against, as the blog implies, then the judge was totally wrong and the case should have been overturned on appeal. Separation of church and state.

Yes. And very removed from the discussion. Basically, you are unable to justify your attacks on others’ beliefs. So, to cover yourself, you claim to be the one being attacked.

Of course, your next move is to go back on the offensive.

Who got is whose face? From what I’ve seen it seems you’re the one who jumps down someone’s throat when they mention a belief in God. Are you sure you’re not inviting the argument?

Someone says, “God bless you”, do you come back with, “I don’t need God?” Are you sure you’re not the one at fault all this time?

Or you’re assuming that they make the assumption and jump down their throat. At least that’s been the case I’ve seen from you so far.

Bull. Read the thread.
Here’s my argument: Your argument is that it’s ridiculous to believe in God.

What logic? What reason? Go back and quote it. Find somewhere in the thread where you have used any logic or reason to back that up. There ISN’T ANY.

Come on. Sum up your argument. Use that logic and reason.

You have also tried to rewrite my argument into a form that you think you can have the upper-hand. You don’t have the right to do that. You want to argue against what I said, then quote me and show where I’m wrong. Don’t rewrite my words to fit your own misconcpetions.

Prove it. I disagree. The statement “There is a God.” is equal in strength to “There is no God.” Both are stating something that is not possible to prove through observable means. Both rely entirely on personal belief with no physical evidence to back them up.

Evidence in favor of their being a God can be contraverted.
There is not evidence in favor of their not being a God.

That is what supports my claim of the two position’s equality.

What do you have?

Sheesh…whatever. Okay, so I say I have a friend named Stan standing beside me. You cannot see him, touch him, smell him, hear him, or anything. Does he exist? Or am I a little whacko?[/quote]
Probably whacko. Now, are you claiming he has the qualities of being invisible, immaterial, scentless, soundless, etc. except to those he chooses to reveal himself?

If not, then you are very likely delusional. I’d need confirmation from an independent source that I wasn’t the one being delusional.

But if you claim your friend is from the future and had an advanced cloaking device and other relevant technology, and using 21st century technology he was completely undetectable… well, I can’t say you must be wrong. Your explanation takes care of my objections.

That doesn’t mean I will believe you. I will need some kind of evidence to make me start to believe your story is true. But you aren’t necessarily whacko. In fact, I’d assume it’s an April Fool’s joke.

If this were 100 years ago, then yes, I would think you were insane. But I know about this technology, so I would figure it out and try to confirm whether you were using some kind of technology or not.

But let’s take your analogy where you want it to go: what if I had no idea such technology existed? Well, for sure, I would certainly begin to question your sanity. But if you seemed to be normal otherwise save for your mysterious conversations with your friend in Wurumqi, I would want to do some investigation into this, maybe ask around. And sooner or later I would figure out that you were using high technology of a sort I’d previously had no idea existed.[/quote]
You’re assuming you have the means to figure this out. How many times do you see me? Do you have means to travel to Wulumuqi? Without the means to verify what I’m saying you can’t really figure out whether I’m crazy or not. You just make that assumption I am because you can’t see the person I say I’m talking to.

And you’d be wrong.

Or maybe you’d be converted. :laughing:
Like these guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
I see absolutely no difference between religious messiah beliefs and the cargo cult folks. What ARE the differences? Can someone tell me?[/quote]
Revelation.

Or maybe you’d be converted. :laughing:
Like these guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
I see absolutely no difference between religious messiah beliefs and the cargo cult folks. What ARE the differences? Can someone tell me?[/quote]
Revelation.[/quote]
Huh? What does that mean?

[quote=“sandman”][quote][quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
I see absolutely no difference between religious messiah beliefs and the cargo cult folks. What ARE the differences? Can someone tell me?[/quote]
Revelation.[/quote]
Huh? What does that mean?[/quote]
Cargo cultists are not claiming someone told them this is what they should do. They decided on their own that this is what they should do because they saw someone else doing it. It’s mimicry, not doing something because they are instructed to do so (at least, not initially).

If someone were to have come to these people and told them to build runways for planes to land and promised them there would be airplane landings, then they’d be more similar to a religion.

But in the case of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. there is someone there telling people that they have a message from a supreme being. The supreme being intructs them on how they are supposed to live. They don’t observe people living some way and then ascend to heaven, they are told how to live and follow it.

Whether or not both groups are believing in false notions or not, the key difference between them is that the religions are claiming revelation while the cargo cultists are not.

You could but I am not sure you understand it.

I am sorry the tone of this thread has gone so sour and apologize for whatever influence I might have had in that regard, but seriously, Puiwaihin, you are climbing waay out on a limb here asking us to question the fact of our own existence. On a philosophical level, somewhere off in the twilight zone, such questions might have some purpose but generally speaking people assume that their awareness of the world proves their existence and they further assume that that awareness causes them to be aware of certain physical laws. We accomplish a lot on the basis of such assumptions. If you expect someone to believe that those laws have “ever” been broken the burden of proof is on you. Unfortunately all you have is one book. It isn’t even near enough to convince any sensible person.

You could but I am not sure you understand it.[/quote]
I completely understand it. Visions=delusions. Didn’t really happen, but people really believed it did and where charismatic enough to convince others. Compound that with others who are already exposed to a religion also having full-sensational delusions having delusions based on their previous indoctrination and the general prediliction of people reinforce their own beliefs, and you have prophets who say they see God and are even willing to die because they are completely convinced that what they experienced was real.

Did I leave something out?

No, I get it.

Well, not if you don’t really exist. Then I’m just asking myself to doubt your existence.

The point was, he was comparing apples and oranges. Something that can plainly be seen, and something by its very nature that cannot. His Aunt somebody and comparing that with God. A ridiculous argument.

I gave an equally ridiculous answer. You can’t prove anything beyond your own existence and absolute laws like mathematics, and that only to yourself.

But the problem is that we are in a realm of discussion that absolutely defies science as an answer. Science relies on empirical data, in ruling out all that just cannot be right and coming to a conclusion.

We are, essentially, touching on a philisophical realm. You cannot examine reality purely on what we can experience emprically.

If I am trying to prove so, yes, it is. But you are assuming that they never have been different. That is not an assumption I’m willing to make.

whether or not reality as we see it exists exactly as we know it now, and has always and will forever be, is beyond our ability to know. I believe some of the laws we have observed are eternal, but to assume that all the physical laws we have observed exist for all forms of matter and time/space configurations is difficult considering how little we know about what little we can see.

Do you know what the laws of physics are? They are just observations. We see things falling at a certain rate. All objects we observe fall at the same rate. The law doesn’t explain why, that’s where theory comes in.

Matter can’t occupy the same place at the same time as other matter. Purely observation. But when we observe things at the quantum level, it seems some of our physical laws don’t really apply. This is still all speculative, because we don’t understand all that we’re seeing, but perhaps our understanding of the universe is only right as it applies to matter in the form we know it.

When it comes to things far removed from our experience we really don’t know very much at all.

But you don’t even have a book. The whole atheist side is just an attempt to say the theist side is wrong.

You could but I am not sure you understand it.[/quote]

[quote]I completely understand it. Visions=delusions. Didn’t really happen, but people really believed it did and where charismatic enough to convince others. Compound that with others who are already exposed to a religion also having full-sensational delusions having delusions based on their previous indoctrination and the general prediliction of people reinforce their own beliefs, and you have prophets who say they see God and are even willing to die because they are completely convinced that what they experienced was real.

Did I leave something out? [/quote]

That’s putting it rather less compassionately than I would if pressed to make a serious comment on the issue, but still, no, that about sums it up.

I don’t know if philo-babble is a word yet but…

In questioning the existence of god, yes, in questioning the occurance of miracles, nah, not really. Scientists are able to describe a lot of things that happened a long time ago and with reasonable accuracy some believe. Of course it’s impossible to prove whether or not christ turned water to wine for example but knowing what we know it about the world it is highly doubtful that he actually did.

For psychological reasons I would warrant.

But there is no reason to believe things have ever been any different, not with regard to gravity, and not with the chemical properties of water either.

Precisely. But we do know something of the fear and confusion that motivates human beings to develop religious systems.

My dear, dear misguided soul don’t you realize? We have the whole history of science. It’s all about making theories based on the vast store of information available to us and then seeking, through exploration and rational analysis, a proof of those theories. Someone suggested recently that the Chinese made a map of North and South America a thousand years ago or something. I imagine there were psychological motivations, probably related to ethno-centric pride, behind such a claim as well but it just didn’t stand up to the cold hard light of reason. The faith that people have in jesus being the son of god is explainable in terms of today’s knowledge of psychology. In a similar manner the old lady downstairs who sees ghosts all the time and burns ghost money is understandable. She is a garden variety, harmless, sweet as the day you were born, psychotic.

I’m going to stop addressing certain parts of our argument, because we’re not going to get any further on them.

[quote=“puiwaihin”]Have you read Descartes? I could always borrow Bob’s argument.

How can I know that you actually replied to me? I could be insane, and this entire conversation is occuring in my head. I made you up, made the four up, and I’m still just lying in bed right now.

Now, where’s your proof that you exist?[/quote]
What am I going to say next, in my post following this one?

Poof! Your silly pseudo-cartesian nonsense just vanished into thin air.

Whoa…I don’t have a god.

Because “different beliefs” are not science. Evolution is the best possible scientific theory we have to explain how life, erm, evolves. In fact, any science teacher worth his salt will explain that there are no absolutes, but that we simply have our best available theories, which invariably will be improved upon in the future.

Religion is faith. Science is methodical theory.

[quote=“puiwaihin”]Personally, I don’t think creation should be taught in science class. But, then I don’t think evolution as it is being taught is right, either. I was told in my high school science class that evolution explained where man came from. It wasn’t presented as a theory, it was presented as fact.

Evolution is preached to classes by some teachers like a sermon. That’s not science. That’s indoctrination. Hypocrites.[/quote]
A good science teacher should preface any discussion of any scientific theory by explaining that the most fundamental foundation of science is that all we have are our best available theories, and there are no absolutes. Would this have placated you? However, I don’t think too many teachers really feel like explaining this at the beginning of every class.

It’s the atheist’s inability to cope with the beliefs of others that’s asinine. People want to express a belief in something publically? Nope, they can’t do it because you don’t believe it. You don’t want to hear others say they believe in God so you outlaw it by distorting the meaning of the Constitution.[/quote]
Most atheists that I know don’t have a problem with religious belief. Just keep it out of our faces, thanks. And my constitution is just fine, though I need to avoid too much citrus, as it bothers my stomach. Not sure why you capitalized “constitution,” though, unless it was an expression of respect for my feeble abdomen. Erm, thanks for that.

Bullshit. The Christianists wishing to enforce their own brand of religious bigotry upon people (again, this happens more in the USA than in, say, Canada or Europe) far outnumber your apocryphal “anti-religious nuts.” And your second point is completely incoherent.

Look, no one wants to stop you believing in a god. Sure, I may wish to debate you about how silly it is, but I’m not stopping you from doing it. Have your church, and go nuts. But since I pay taxes just like the Christianists do, don’t use public, shared property or forums to make declarations of a Christianist nature.

Why isn’t worshipping your god in your church enough for you? Why do you feel the need to say a prayer in public, or to invoke the name of your god? Why isn’t doing everything you want to do in your church good enough? I don’t believe in your god.

Who got is whose face? From what I’ve seen it seems you’re the one who jumps down someone’s throat when they mention a belief in God. Are you sure you’re not inviting the argument?[/quote]
Yes, I came on to this thread and provoked this. I admit it. So you have me there. Though, in my defense, this is a discussion forum. It’s not like we met on the street and you said “God bless you” when I sneezed. People get into debates on these forums. Granted, I didn’t need to stir things up, but it’s too late for that now, because I did.

But, overall, religionists get in my face a lot more than atheists get in your face. I get it all the time, from relatives, people on the street preaching, etc. Tell me, how often in your daily life do people come up to you out of nowhere and say something like: “Religion is dumb, get a life”? Not too often.

My dear, dear misguided soul don’t you realize? We have the whole history of science. It’s all about making theories based on the vast store of information available to us and then seeking, through exploration and rational analysis, a proof of those theories.[/quote]
The whole history of science? You know what the whole history of science tells us? It tells us that when we make assumptions we often find out just how wrong we can be.

Science is not about proving theories right. It’s about avoiding getting proven wrong. Your appeal to the “whole history of science” does absolutely nothing for you. Science does as much for theists as it does for atheists.

How absolutely misguided. Appeal to science. :laughing: No, it’s not an appeal to the whole body of science, it’s an appeal to a fundamentally flawed argument: I don’t see it, so it cannot exist.

You know, that’s exactly the kind of thinking that is at fault. Is there any possible reason why a Chinese person could not have made a map of those continents a thousand years ago? What does the cold light of reason reveal here?

Given only the information you have given me, that statement about a Chinese map predating European discoveries is possible. Explain to me why there could not have been a Chinese vessel that went out exploring, made a map and returned, only to have their map dismissed as bogus because of sinocenric tendancies.

Yes, and it’s explainable in terms of Norse mythology as well. Jesus was Thor, come to redeem Odin’s eye. But just because you have a possible explanation, that does not mean it is what really happened.

You can explain the universe in a dozen different ways. It can fit everything we know to be true. And still be wrong. Simply because you have a convenient excuse to disbelieve in anyone who seems to be sincere yet claims to have had a religious vision does not make your excuse right.

Once again, you go pointing a finger and calling people psychotic when you really don’t know jack squat about the person’s mental state. Nobody knows what the lady has or has not seen. She could have seen something completely real but misinterpreted it, she could understand the nature of “ghost” differently than you or I, she could have actually seen a ghost, or maybe she has had delusions.

Point is, you don’t know. You just say what makes you feel better about your own beliefs (or lack of them).

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“Jaboney”]Hey bismarck, not to interject in your theology, but I haven’t been following this one and as a few posters have found yours informative there’s a couple of points I’d like to lob back at you for consideration.

Hi Jaboney,

I’ve got a real shocker for you. Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God due to their faith.

Regarding dietary laws, Jesus Himself rebelled against the Old Testament’s strict dietary and cleanliness laws. One of the reasons the Sanhedrin hated Him was because He would not observe all of the laws. Likewise, various verses in the New Testament indicate that circumcision is not required to be a Christian. There’s certainly nothing wrong with obeying the dietary and purification laws of the Old Testament, but it isn’t necessary. Believing in Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world, on the other hand, is necessary.[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying with Christ himself not choosing to obey Jewish laws regarding diet and cleanliness, but how does a modern day Christian pick and choose what is appropriate to follow? Is that Kosher (pun intended)? I hear some folks follow their PASTOR’S interpretation of the Bible (actually a lot of folks do this). THat is scarey to me because in mind it’s a perfect set up for a Jim Jones like experience (for those who don’t know, back in the 1970’s, this guy declared himself the resurrected Christ, started his own religion, and eventually everyone in his flock drank cyanide laced Kool Aid). :loco:

Bodo

[quote=“porcelainprincess”][quote=“puiwaihin”]Have you read Descartes? I could always borrow Bob’s argument.

How can I know that you actually replied to me? I could be insane, and this entire conversation is occuring in my head. I made you up, made the four up, and I’m still just lying in bed right now.

Now, where’s your proof that you exist?[/quote]
What am I going to say next, in my post following this one?

Poof! Your silly pseudo-cartesian nonsense just vanished into thin air. [/quote]
What because you think I can’t predict your next move? Can you predict what others are going to say to you in a dream? No, you still don’t exist. The dream/delusion/hallucination is not something I have conscious control of. So it makes no matter if I can predict what you say.

Poof! Your sad little argument vanishes back into the ether. You still are unable to prove your own existence to me. You can only prove it to yourself.

This is a waste of time, though. If you are part of delusion or a dream, what does it matter if you can’t prove your existence? And if you do exist apart from me, I’ve got better things to do than watch you fail to be able to prove your existence.

Whoa…I don’t have a god.[/quote]
Sure you do. You just don’t believe in him. That would be like you saying you don’t have a government.

So, either we both have a God, or neither of us do. Our belief is irrelevant to God’s actual existence or lack thereof.

Because “different beliefs” are not science.[/quote]
Oh, I disagree. The beginning of science begins with a question. The next step is to formulate answers based on what we know. Then you test the explanations and refine them.

Belief in intelligent design cannot be tested. But it is part of the question and answer process. It cannot be further treated in a scientific manner, but that does not remove it from the framework of the discussion.

Not only that, it’s the best theory we have to explain the vast number of different species, connections and similarities between them, and even the origins of both man and life itself.

In fact, I believe species are evolving. That’s actually scientific fact, not just theory.

But just because it’s the best available theory doesn’t make it correct. And students should be given an accurate picture of that uncertainty.

Or discarded. I totally agree. And if evolution is taught with that in mind I think it should be treated seriously and not opposed by some radical theists.

There is room for a discussion of creationism in the science classroom, though. It should be put in proper perspective, that creationism is not actually a theory because it cannot be tested. But what can possibly be wrong with mentioning it in the correct light?

You’re oversimplifying both religion and science, but I agree that faith should not be a subject of discussion in science class. Doubt and skepticism are essential to good science.

It’s not that every class needs to be prefaced by what a theory is, it’s that teachers need to present the theory as a theory. Not just a theory in name only.

I had a professor of sociology who constantly quoted certain theories as if they were facts, as if he were arguing in favor of these theories. Many of these theories I disagreed with, and took issue with him in class. Later, it turned out that he didn’t really believe in all these issues, he was just explaining it as if he did. Were he to have used phrases like, “according to whiteness theory, the main distinguishing feature of ethnically white people is an inherent racism” instead of “the main distinguishing feature of ethnically white people is an inherent racism”, I would have had no argument.

Unfortunately, teachers present this particular theory as fact. That’s what I find objectionable.

Let’s apply this to something else: hip-hop music. Let’s say you don’t have a problem with hip-hop music, you just want people to keep it out of your face. So, no hip-hop in a public forum, or played on public grounds, right? Nobody in office should say that they think hip-hop is totally cool.

There’s a difference between someone accosting you and trying to impose their beliefs on you and someone just stating their beliefs openly. And there’s a difference between someone offering a prayer in public and someone requiring others to follow the conventions of a prayer.

Freedom of expression and a forbiddance of state interference of religion comes at a price: people are allowed to say things to your face that you disagree with.

Because it refers to a legal document and the word Constitution is capitalized in the document.
http://www.usconstitution.net

That’s the convention for referring to the US Constitution.

Bullshit. The Christianists wishing to enforce their own brand of religious bigotry upon people (again, this happens more in the USA than in, say, Canada or Europe) far outnumber your apocryphal “anti-religious nuts.” And your second point is completely incoherent.[/quote]
Christians and atheists are both guilty of doing this. Both are wrong. The atheist groups doing this are very loud minority. There’s nothing apocryphal about the anti-religious zealots. They exist, and they make it difficult for people to practice their religion in public.

Let me spell out the second point for you:
Using the principle of “separation of church and state” to get the state to curb religious freedom is ironic.

Why can’t I use public, shared property for these purposes? I pay taxes just like atheists do. Who are you to tell me that I can’t use public forums for these purposes? My freedom of religion is a guaranteed right.

The line comes when the state is actively promoting religion, preferring one belief system over another, or public funds are going to a private religion. It’s the institutional support of religion or institutional interference in religion that is a threat to freedom.

Why do you have a problem with people praying in public, or invoking the name of our God? Why can’t a school administartor publicly express a belief in God? In fact, profession of faith is a part of many religions. Restricting the ability to profess belief is not only a violation of our right to our religion, it’s a restriction of free speech and free expression.

Are you afraid children will hear someone who is respected claiming a belief in God and consider that belief? Maybe that will happen. But nothing in a statement of belief requires anyone else to believe that same way.

Again, the line is when government officials require others to act in accordance with their own beliefs, not when they express belief.

Glad you can admit to that. I understand you are in part reacting to things that have been thrown your way. But you know, maybe a little Christian doctrine will serve you well: turn the other cheek. It’s really good advice. For me as well.

On forums like this, it’s quite common. But I admit there aren’t many street preaching atheists.

There is a fundamental reason for the difference here, though. Christians believe if you don’t accept Christ you’ll go to hell, or at least be seriously punished. So, spreading the word is being a good citizen according to their beliefs.

Atheists don’t think belief in atheism will result in a great advantage, or avoid a great punishment. (There is some degree of freedom at stake, but that is not anywhere near on the same scale as heaven/hell.) I think if atheists thought they could really benefit others by converting them to a faithlessness you’d see some street atheists, too.

Bollocks. Science, if it is even necessary to use such an illustrious term, tells us that the physical world has certain properties. Theists claim that during a certain point in time those laws were broken. If such claims are meant to be taken seriously they need to be backed up with substantial evidence. They aren’t.

There are plenty of things I believe to exist despite the fact that I haven’t seen them, just not jesus talking for god or as god or whatever it is you guys believe.

It reveals that if the Chinese had made a map of North and South America they would have needed to have actually lived in those places long enough to do so. If they had done that they would have left evidence, things like cities and such.

OK you are just having fun winding me up and watching me spin right? Experimenting with just how much silliness I am willing to respond to?

No, but it is more likely than that he was who he said he was. We are going in circles here.

No, just reasonable given what we know of the world.

I know she sees ghosts and burns ghost money in their honor in my stairwell. If nobody else can see the ghosts, chances are they ain’t there. Chances are a chemical imbalance in her brain causes her to see ghosts. Take enough LSD and you might see them too.

[quote=“puiwaihin”]

God creates world and everything is perfectly good.
God puts man into world and gives him a few rules.
Man (at the behest of woman) breaks the rules. Punishment: Death, eventually
God gives mortal man and children rules. Some of the children reject the rules and God along with it.
God sends prophets out to try and convince the children to obey the rules
Children kill prophets and continue to reject God until the point that only one family was left that did not reject him.
Everyone except the one family (Noah) gets wiped and God starts over
Some of Noah’s children reject God and his rules
Righteous line of Noah continues to live by the rules, but more continue to reject God. (record of attempts to preach to them don’t exist, but it’s safe to assume such attempts occured considering the previous pattern)
God makes promises to the righteous line (Abraham)
</end synopsis>[/quote]

This is where MY PROBLEMS with Christianity begin. Patriarchal bullshit, IMVHO.

Bodo

[quote=“bob”]I should add here that this is perhaps one of the saddest debates I have ever engaged in. I understand the anxiety and confusion that drives people to religious belief (heck I looked there myself some many years ago) and I would hate to be the person to deny them that comfort. What I believe though is that with the human population growing as it is, and with all the conflicts and problems we see arising, the world needs all the clear thinkers it can find.

Nice conversation so far by the way. Neither one of us will ever teach the other a darn thing I don’t imagine but it’s always fun to try.[/quote]

Bob, I am a confirmed agnostic leaning toward atheism, so let me put that out there before I say this . . . You are using the system of science to argue your assertions. P, for his part, is appealing to other ways of knowing beyond simply one’s senses, and the age-old hypothesis and testing method/Scientific Method or Empiricism, perhaps. You’re right. It is pointless to argue if you refuse to accept that there are other ways of knowing truth (other than the scientific method/Empiricist viewpoint). That’s okay by me . . . but it IS like watching you bang your head against the wall again and again as you “converse” with P.

I have appreciated your discussion. Please don’t get me wrong. It has been interesting, especially P’s beliefs/ideas.

[quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology]Ontology has one basic question: “What actually exists?” Different philosophers provide different answers to this question.

One common approach is to divide the extant entities into groups called “categories”. However, these lists of categories are also quite different from one another. It is in this later sense that ontology is applied to such fields as theology, library science and artificial intelligence.

Further examples of ontological questions include:

What is existence?
Is existence a property?
Why does something exist rather than nothing?
What constitutes the identity of an object?
What is a physical object?
What features are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental, attributes of a given object?
Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?
What are an object’s properties or relations and how are they related to the object itself?
When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?

. . . . . .

Empiricism
Empiricists claim knowledge is a product of human experience. Statements of observations take pride of place in empiricist theory. Na

The ontological argument for the existence of god was rejected by all serious philosphers centuries ago. I don’t know what that means but it is a line that a stuck in my head ever since I was grandiose enough to study “the philosophy of religion” no less.

Anyway, we have a variety of words for people who think there “are other ways of knowing” about historical events.

OK I remember now. The ontological argument for the existence of God goes like this:

If god is a bean of which no greater bean could exist then god must exist because a bean that exits is by nature greater than a bean that doesn’t exist.

I don’t recall, unfortunately, where the argument falls apart but I suspect it has something to do with some sort of difficulty defining the word “greater”.

[quote=“bob”]OK I remember now. The ontological argument for the existence of God goes like this:

If god is a bean of which no greater bean could exist then god must exist because a bean that exits is by nature greater than a bean that doesn’t exist.

I don’t recall, unfortunately, where the argument falls apart but I suspect it has something to do with some sort of difficulty defining the word “greater”.[/quote]

Bob, I have never studied philosophy. Have only had the privilege of listening to one lecture a long long time ago when getting my B.S. (pun intended too) degree at UVa. So, forgive me if I naively inserted an idea that is too stupid for you or others to consider. Just didn’t realize that you’re debate with P with framed completely within rational empiricism. My bad . . .

Bodo

[quote=“bob”]The ontological argument for the existence of god was rejected by all serious philosphers centuries ago. I don’t know what that means but it is a line that a stuck in my head ever since I was grandiose enough to study “the philosophy of religion” no less.

Anyway, we have a variety of words for people who think there “are other ways of knowing” about historical events.[/quote]
The problem isn’t really that defining “greater” is difficult. It’s that the definition is arbitrary and doesn’t necessarily have to match any current beliefs.

The argument defines God as that which nothing greater can be thought of, and reasons that something that exists is greater than something that does not exist, thus God must exist else something greater would exist than God which by definition would be impossible.

But this really doesn’t help in this discussion.

[quote=“Bodo”]Just didn’t realize that you’re debate with P with framed completely within rational empiricism.

Bodo[/quote]
:wink:

Precisely. I don’t accept such a restriction.