Jobar

Two things here.

One. I have noted a lot of sniping from both sides about petty errors of grammar and spelling. These are scarcely germane to the argument, now are they? If someone uses a misspelling constantly I point out the mistake; otherwise I attribute it to the unavoidable mistakes human fingers make. (Unless the mistake obscures the meaning intended.)

Two. This thread seems to me to have become pointless when Gemma stated that her faith is not based on tangible evidence- as I said several pages back, we unbelievers require just this if we are to be convinced of the reality of God. (Just as we require evidence for any of the huge numbers of mundane beliefs we hold.)

I am thinking of either closing this one down, or moving it to R&R. But in the interests of fairness, I ask once more- do the theistic disputants here have more they wish to say?

Ion

To which Synaesthesia wrote:
"...a faith built in faith can only rest on sand.",
and Galileo wrote:
"To be unquestioningly pious and unthinkingly devoted...".

I agree with Synaesthesia and Galileo:
Gemma you are only obsessed with belief, you don't think about what is real and what is imaginary, and you preach your obsession onto others.

Ion

In fact, that's being a fanatic, by definition.

That's sad for you, Gemma.

Kamchatka

Ion,

You said, "Kamschatka. This validates science and technology as a human-made tool containing a consciousness in understanding how natural laws do operate.

"Science and technology becomes worthy pursuing for the human condition."

Let's go back to the assertion; "In conscious life there are only logic and reason."

Now you defend your assertion by claiming that science and technology are human-made tools that have consciousness.

There's nothing like the smell of atheists creating gods of themselves in the morning.

You have a very long way to go, Ion. 100% of the highways, bridges, buildings, books etcetera I see don't come close to the genius of nature except for the fact that they are all just part of nature.

Logic and reason, science and technology are man-made tools utilized for survival. But you take it to the next level. You suggest that they are all that exist in this consciousness. You even suggest they are consciousness itself.

And then you are oblivious enough to deny that they are man-made gods worshipped in man-made ways by men trying to figure out the human condition.

You are no different than Gemma Therese. You speak of the religious "arrogance of know-it-all about nature" while you are looking in the mirror and are so ignorant of your own man-made religion that you no longer can even recognize yourself. You no longer exist. You are logic and reason. You are science and technology. You are your religion. You are god.

You don't even exist in your own consciousness. You must be Buddha.

You said, "Nobody knows how the universe operates, and religions are charlatans for claiming otherwise while science and technology with its empirical proofs makes promising strides into the subject."

Now you are anthropomorhizing other religions the way you have anthropomorphized logic and reason and science and technology. And you accuse the other religions that you have anthropomorphized of not being the true anthropomorphized religion, the only "worthy" religion, your religion, your consciousness, which is not even your consciousness.

And you accuse Gemma Therese and her like of arrogance, of forcing their religion on people.

Look in the mirror, Ion. Slap yourself. You are the unconscious one around here.

himynameisPwn

Logic and reason are not and never have been religions, nor claim to be. Logic hasn't told me to sacrifice a goat (yet).

Ion

It's not "Now..." Kamchatka, it's always been like this in my posts.

You didn't learn it?

Gee, Kamchatka...
What's "...the smell of atheists creating gods of themselves in the morning.", Kamchatka?

I stated, re-stated many times so that even you can catch up, see my last post to you, that science and technology is the closest human-made tool humanity has devised as a conscious effort to understand the nature's laws, since it has empirical reproduction of material objects from raw nature to back it up.
Religion doesn't have this back up, so religion is further removed from conscious understanding of nature's laws.

Therefore Kamchatka, is "...the smell of atheists creating gods of themselves in the morning.", some personal belief you have?
Like I wrote in my previous post to you, Kamchatka, at least science and technology takes credit for doing this from raw nature.
Religion, has zero credit in its account to do anything to and from nature.

Kamchatka, take up this challenge, that I put last night to the Englishman from Hull, to Gemma, and that I am putting now to you:
show me tangible proof that the Bible's God ever did or does anything to nature.

When I ask this proof to religious people, after their phony claims that "God did this and that.", I never get a tangible proof.

You might want to have a better luck with me.
Try it.
Kamchatka, yours "You are god.", "You must be Budda." is in contradiction with my "Nobody knows how the universe operates, and religions are charlatans for claiming otherwise while science and technology with its empirical proofs makes promising strides into the subject.".

It appears from my statement that I don't claim science and technology is 'omnipotent'.
Improve you analytical skills from what I do claim.
It is each one's consciousness in successfully manipulating nature as long as one builds tangible objects from nature.
Kamchatka, replace your 'moral' sermon with tangible proofs of the Bible's God existence.

Do it in the next post. I am waiting.

Ion

Silenced, Kamchatka?

"...show me tangible proof that the Bible's God ever did or does anything to nature.", doesn't come along, does it?

Even if you are in another time zone than me according to the delays on your postings, still it has been many hours since my challenge to you, yet, in order to produce plenty of tangible proofs of that God's existence, should take only 1/10 of a second:
that God is allegedly 'omnipresent' for allegedly 6,000 years, and allegedly does communicate to humans a desire to be worshipped.

Typhon

Having somewhat lost track of what started this thread with Gemma's constant sniping (ironically enough considering the very first post she made) about spelling and grammar, I went back to the first post to see if I could find the meat of the original argument.
Hmm, interesting.

I can bloody well DRIVE to Ohio from Alabama, and with the help of a trusty and well tested compass or even with my new fancy GPS, I can tell that indeed, this appears a solid fact, backed up not only by verifiable, reliable witnesses and authorities on geography, but directly verifiable through my own experience.

I can also record my trip, take witnesses along for the ride, repeat the trip as many times as I want and can afford the gas money, and yes, I suspect that Ohio will remain north of Alabama.

Now, how in all the crazy-talk of all the sleepwalking faithful of the world, does this example compare to the search for god?

NONE of these means by which I'm able to test for "truth," as in the case of Ohio being north of Alabama, are available to me when dealing with this supposed god. EVERYTHING in fact that I can test, points to the fact that he or she is just another myth, like Gilgamesh, Horus, or the Tooth Fairy.

So as far as I can see, this blithe comparison is utterly worthless. Anyone care to disagree that the two (driving to Ohio to see if it's north of Alabama, and proving the validity of god) are somehow comparable in a truly useful manner?

Next, there is this part:

Again, I find Gemma to be the mistress of irony, considering that all of her stated reasons for belief in this mythical god and his mythical hell to which I'm sure she feels all us nasty atheists are plunging to in lit coal-buckets, have been based on either:

1. Blind, personal faith.
2. The lives and teachings of others who possess faith in the same god.

What are these accounts, even if they were true ones, BUT subjective?

Now, nowhere have I seen Gemma discuss any objective proofs, based on the physical cosmos, logic, mathematical theory, or even philosophical grounds (though I do admit this last one is not a firm place to argue from to begin with, considering most of the classical would-be philosophical proofs of god have long since been painfully trounced, dismissed, or otherwise rendered useless).

And yet, you say, Gemma, that religion (by this I suppose you mean YOUR religion, the faith of the RCC) is "not entirely or even primarily subjective."

Judges, did I miss something along the way? What has Gemma or anyone else in this thread, been able to present that shows that this is a valid statement?

So, it seems to me, that this whole thing has been a great waste of time and discussion space. It truly belongs in RR&P, because unless someone would like to step up now, noone has even bothered to (or has been unable to) show anything that is objective about religion here.

OT: Oh, and as to joining the church, never fear Gemma. I'd sooner join a glee club for serial killers, than go near the RCC, with its molesting, unrepentant priests, and the bishops, cardinals, and even popes, who have long fought to shield them.

Many individual members of the church and its clergy are fine, upstanding people, no doubt of this. However, taken as a whole, I find the church to be of dubious moral character at best, with at least as much societal evils as works of good or common charity on its balance sheet.

Despite the love I have for the history of the church, and its august place in the identity of the Western world, I for one will breathe a quiet breath of relief, should it be ever dismantled as an organized faith and body.

.T.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Ion

Typhon,
do you know how to tell the difference between cults and religions?

The answer is:
cults have their sexual predators punished (like Koresh from Texas was), while religions have their sexual predators shielded (like the Roman Catholics do).

Typhon

OT: This is a troublesome part of many religions IMO. The RCC is not the only group to have long-standing problems with sexual and emotional abuse.

I have a close friend who was raised up in the Hare Krishna religion. She is forever scarred by systematic and sanctioned sexual abuse she received from the time she was an infant to a young teen. Those involved were church members, as well as her own family. To this day, her family refuses to accept this, even though one of the abusers was her own brother.

The entire church has been under fire for such abuses, which took place under the auspices of the church and at the hands of many of the faith's leaders. To this day I truly worry for all those children who are involved in the faith.

.T.