Exchanging religious views with respect

Dec 3, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Signal

Before Saturday, Rebecca Corona-Nickerson did not know too much about Buddhism including the fact that Buddhism has no god.

Comments
241 - 260 of 888 Comments Last updated Apr 1, 2010
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#245
Jan 21, 2010
 
Path wrote:
<quoted text>As a figment of mans imaginations, I find the equipment was found with the pen, and before that the chisel.
“As a figment of mans imaginations, I find the equipment was found with the pen, and before that the chisel.”

Believe me when I tell you that before the chisel was the concept.

Since: Jul 08

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#246
Jan 21, 2010
 
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
“Back in the day - people used birds in cave to detect if 'undetectable' deadly gasses existed - now why is that?”
Because they knew that humans could not DETECT all that surrounds them and that the birds were able to detect things that they could not.
“Was that 'god' they could not detect?”
Rhetorical and as you said they could not detect deadly gases but don’t lose sight of the fact that the inability by humans to detect these gases did not mean or prevent them from existing.
“Of course not. And like all other 'mysteries' on this planet have never been evidence for 'god' but simply natural phenomenon.”
In the past there were things that humans were unable to detect but with improved technology they are able to do so. Now, how do you know that someday the technology to detect the existence of angles that are around us will not be developed?
Actually, they used the bird because it would die quickly if there was gas in the cave.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
Jan 21, 2010
 
liberal weenie wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, they used the bird because it would die quickly if there was gas in the cave.
Your point is understood and was actually factored in my thinking.

But birds were used “ to detect if 'undetectable' deadly gasses"

And my point,we cannot DETECT all that surrounds us.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Jan 21, 2010
 
ElijahI wrote:
<quoted text>
Is science's seperation from theological considerations absurd?
No, in many contexts it is appropriate.

But to imply that there are no sense in which they overlap is visibly absurd.

I've already said that I believe that you are bringing a message here whose author wants the fruits of science to stop implicating atheism in the eyes of the millions of typical people that feel comfortable abandoning the church because of that association.

This is your (religious apologists' and propagandists') own doing. You have set yourself up in opposition to science ever since the inception of the modern era, one issue after another through the ages, now Big Bang cosmotology, abiogenesis and evolution being your targets.

So, when your people keep f*cking up, whether it's priest porking altar boys, homophobic evangelical televangelests snorting powders off of the privates of manwhores, or hatemongers blaming the victims in terrorist or earthquake catastrophe, well, people look at their Blackberry and their iPod, and they judge you the loser, then bolt.

Whether you are an author or are privy to the big picture, or whether you are just a vector who has been charged up with a message which purpose he doesn't understand, I cannot say. Nor do I need to know. Nor will I get to know, even if you tell me, since your response pretty much has to be the same either way.

So, we dance. You and "humor" (Alex, what is "a pair of socks?") keep trying to tarnish atheism and dissociate it from science, and I'll keep pointing it out.

Concerning separating science from theological considerations, recall that I said earlier that if there was no modern science, I'm pretty sure that reason would force me to theism. Science gives me an secular alternative to understanding the world, which is a far more appealing. And the more people know about science, the less need they have to accept fallacious arguments for deities argued from incredulity.

So, your scission should be rejected.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
Jan 21, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Those sounds and images are the evidence that the insensible electromagnetic photons really ARE in the air. No gods can be demonstrated by any biological or artificial device.
HughBe wrote:
Not yet. It is believed that angels are around us and if this is so how do you know that someday we will not be able to detect their conversations and thus their reality.
We're all interested in any evidence that can be generated.

You know, if you are right, you should stumble upon something someday that compels most good, open, skeptical, analytic minds to accept the existence of a supernatural / metaphysical realm.

Come to us when you've got something. Until then, there's no way that people such as us will do anything but note your claims and their lack of foundation, and treat them as your opinions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Jan 21, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Answer: no. It makes sound waves that are never converted into sound. There needs to be a conscious mind with a working ear in order for there to be sound.
HughBe wrote:
Yes it does.

Would the animals hear it and respond to it? YES

Would a sound recording device pick up the sound? YES.

A sound recording device is not a conscious mind.
Read what I wrote, and then read what you wrote again, carefully please. You have the tone of someone who disagrees with me, but you never actually contradict me.

Do you agree or disagree? Do you still think that this is a good and clear answer? Would you like to amend it?
jack13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Jan 21, 2010
 
ElijahI wrote:
<quoted text>
Your existence.
I credit my mother and father. I'd hate to think some peeping tom had intruded during their mating. No god needed. Just a horny couple without birth control. Of course I am aware that sex creates babies. You seem to be lacking in that area of education.
jack13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#252
Jan 21, 2010
 
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
“As a figment of mans imaginations, I find the equipment was found with the pen, and before that the chisel.”
Believe me when I tell you that before the chisel was the concept.
Your particular brand of a god was conceived around 6,000 years ago. Writing in Egypt precludes this date by at least 5,000 years. Papyrus was the paper of the day. Whether the chisel predates that is up in the air, but pictures on cave walls were not chiseled, but were painted and predates both writing and chiseled images by tens of thousand years. No gods were indicated in those cave painting that relate to a god unless the primitive men were worshipping the animals they were painting. The earliest gods were not men but women and the charms depicting her have been found throughout Europe. I realize this is blasphemy in your religion, but is an undeniable fact, women were valued above males by early man. I think they got it right, don't you?
NotBuyingIt

Mesa, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253
Jan 21, 2010
 
ElijahI wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I didn't. The "event" was presuppossed. An interpretation of supernaturality is situational to the natural.
Now you introduce the idea of 'interpretation' when speaking of 'knowledge'?

'facts' can not be correct AND 'interpreted' in multiple ways.

You either interpret the facts correctly or you are *wrong*.
ElijahI

Israel

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254
Jan 21, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
But to imply that there are no sense in which they overlap is visibly absurd.


The question is not whether they overlap but whether they should.
I've already said that I believe that you are bringing a message here whose author wants the fruits of science to stop implicating atheism in the eyes of the millions of typical people that feel comfortable abandoning the church because of that association.
Good that just justifies my being here, as in actuallity I am attempting to defend pure science from inflated anit-theologists like you attempting to misrepresent yourself as scientific to disquise the persecution you would carry out in your disdain for divinity. These days the so called "athiest" is the equivalent of what the inquisitionist church was in its. You may have different methods but just like them you claim to be against exactly what you practice. You claim to want freedom from religion to disquise your effort to remove religious freedom.
So, when your people keep f*cking up,...people judge you the loser, then bolt.
Who is the loser if those are not in truth my people? Both of you!
trying to dissociate atheism from science,
That would only be possible if the two were assosiated, which they aren't.
if there was no modern science, I'm pretty sure that reason would force me to theism.
If your happy that science has given you a way to live where you feel apart from theism then dont disrespect it with residual speculations on G-d in its name.
jack13 wrote:
I credit my mother and father.
Sounds like an unnesesarily limited existence.
nina

Ottawa, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255
Jan 21, 2010
 
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
...
And my point,we cannot DETECT all that surrounds us.
no, it's only at this point in time with the current technology

we understand the world better now than 100 years ago, than 1000 years ago and you can generalize from there
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256
Jan 21, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Read what I wrote, and then read what you wrote again, carefully please. You have the tone of someone who disagrees with me, but you never actually contradict me.
Do you agree or disagree? Do you still think that this is a good and clear answer? Would you like to amend it?
"If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Answer: no. It makes sound waves that are never converted into sound. There needs to be a conscious mind with a working ear in order for there to be sound.”

You are saying, it is the conversion of the “sound waves” that produces “sound” and as such no sound exist unless conversion takes place and in the absence of such all that exist are waves.

With this in mind, the falling of the tree will produce sound waves but to say that they “are NEVER converted into sound” is where I disagree with you because a sound recording device will record the waves that can be converted to sound at a later date.

Do you disagree?

Please keep in mind your two points i.e. conscious mind and working ear for sound.

In the past, I learnt that children can hear sounds that many adults with proper functioning ears cannot hear. My question is, if there are adults and children at a particular location and the children hear the sound but the adults with proper functioning ears don’t is there sound?

I believe that the following is common knowledge that animals such as dogs can hear sounds that the humans cannot hear, in this context is there sound?

Remember that in these two cases they meet your criteria for sound i.e. a conscious mind with a working ear
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257
Jan 21, 2010
 
jack13 wrote:
<quoted text> Your particular brand of a god was conceived around 6,000 years ago. Writing in Egypt precludes this date by at least 5,000 years. Papyrus was the paper of the day. Whether the chisel predates that is up in the air, but pictures on cave walls were not chiseled, but were painted and predates both writing and chiseled images by tens of thousand years. No gods were indicated in those cave painting that relate to a god unless the primitive men were worshipping the animals they were painting. The earliest gods were not men but women and the charms depicting her have been found throughout Europe. I realize this is blasphemy in your religion, but is an undeniable fact, women were valued above males by early man. I think they got it right, don't you?
Both men and women have equal value in a general sense. However, in some ways women are far more valuable than men and the same can be said about men. For me in one particular way, men are of absolutely no value but to others they are highly valuable. My guess is that taste varies.
jack13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#258
Jan 21, 2010
 
ElijahI wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is not whether they overlap but whether they should.
<quoted text>
Good that just justifies my being here, as in actuallity I am attempting to defend pure science from inflated anit-theologists like you attempting to misrepresent yourself as scientific to disquise the persecution you would carry out in your disdain for divinity. These days the so called "athiest" is the equivalent of what the inquisitionist church was in its. You may have different methods but just like them you claim to be against exactly what you practice. You claim to want freedom from religion to disquise your effort to remove religious freedom.
<quoted text>
Who is the loser if those are not in truth my people? Both of you!
<quoted text>
That would only be possible if the two were associated, which they aren't.
<quoted text>
If your happy that science has given you a way to live where you feel apart from theism then don't disrespect it with residual speculations on G-d in its name.
<quoted text>
Sounds like an unnecessarily limited existence.
What a bunch of crap! You christians continue to bring up science when speaking about atheists. Atheists are happy that science provides us with answers to the word around us. We could care less about religion. There is no basis for any scientific discussion when talking about the supernatural. The supernatural does not deal with facts and there is no way that any science can prove or disprove that any god ever existed. As for the inquisition, it was created by the catholic church and was strictly faith based. How could a group of people who say there is no evidence that any god exists, or has ever existed, be anything like the religious purge called the inquisition? It lasted 300 years and was based on a believe in witches and being possessed by evil spirits. The church finally admitted their was no witches, and oops, we made a mistake. It is you christians that continue to wish us dead and in some lake of fire or black pit of fire. Well, your religion did not hesitate to send those supposed witches to a fiery end. They were burnt by the millions by you believers who believe in spirits, ghosts, devils, souls, etc. Today there are still priests preforming rituals to free people from spirits. When christians are in charge, to first people they exterminate is atheists followed by homosexuals. That was the priority in Nazi Germany and is being repeated in Africa today. So when you start talking about atheists, I perk up my ears because I can just see some stirred up christian mob about to seek me out to kill me. There is no doubt in my mind that you are a first water bigot. Are you a member of the KKK or the Aryan Nation? You sound like one. I don't disdain religion. I ignore it, just as I ignore a drunk on the streets yelling snakes are trying to eat his brain. Alcohol has eaten his brain. Religion as addled yours. Science needs no defense. They deal with facts, not ghosts, goblins, or spirits.
ElijahI

Israel

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#259
Jan 21, 2010
 
jack13 wrote:
How could a group of people who say there is no evidence that any god exists, or has ever existed, be anything like the religious purge called the inquisition?
They have a anti-religious purge. The group think assumptionist mentality, alienation tactics, and passionate slander of gobeldy gook pretending to sophistry that "atheism" is represented by these days fits the profile.
jack13 wrote:
first people they exterminate is atheists followed by homosexuals. That was the priority in Nazi Germany
Seems that I happen to remember a strongly religious group taking the lions share who your failue to mention raises the suspision that you are trying to ignore the oppression people have endured ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RELIGION so as to avoid acknowledging the potential threat that fundamentalist athiesm could carry in the same context but reveresed.
jack13 wrote:
I don't disdain religion. I ignore it,
Sounds like you have some infighting with your fellow "atheists" to do or just create a new name for yourself, cause if people who take a position on religion and then want to call that position scientific are calling themselves by the same name as you, then your not going to be able to justifiably represent yourself as not being party to religious oppression.

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#260
Jan 21, 2010
 
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point is understood and was actually factored in my thinking.
But birds were used “ to detect if 'undetectable' deadly gasses"
And my point,we cannot DETECT all that surrounds us.
Of course we also have to be aware of the problem of false claims being made by those with an agenda. How much weight should we give to unconfirmed statements alleged from a divine source? And what do we do if two of these claims contradict each other? How do we decide which is right?

The bible for example is full of errors and contradictions. How much weight should it be given in our quest for truth and which parts do we chose?

Science makes errors too it's true, but unlike religion, science is a dynamic process of consciousness, ever changing, ever growing.

The bible is a static collection of books carefully chosen by the Roman Catholic Church, the one who brought us the eleven hundred year period of horror called the dark ages.

Science on the other hand has already invented the light bulb and has discovered that killing other people is not nice!

This in just a few hundred years!

It may dramatically change tomorrow but you can always depend on the bible to be precisely what it is.
nina

Ottawa, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#261
Jan 21, 2010
 
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a tree falls ,....I disagree with you because a sound recording device will record the waves ....
a sound recording device is a tech ear that converts the wave

the condition needed isn't the ear per se, but something to recieve and convert the wave.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#262
Jan 21, 2010
 
HughBe wrote:
my point,we cannot DETECT all that surrounds us.
Perhaps. But so what? All that buys you is that there MAY be an undetectable deity in an undetectable heaven filled with undetectable angels. But we already grant you that. It's just that "no evidence for, but cannot be logically ruled out" is not enough reason to accept an idea. To do that would be to guess and call it your faith.

What do you want? You already have the one, which we call weak atheism and agnosticism, which doesn't believe any present claims, but doesn't rule gods out

And you can't have the other, which is faith and theism.

Is there a middle ground? I don't see one.

What do you want from a skeptic when you have no evidence, just a claim?
ElijahI

Israel

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#263
Jan 21, 2010
 
jack13 wrote:
How could a group of people who say there is no evidence that any god exists, or has ever existed, be anything like the religious purge called the inquisition?
You know the inquisition was not waged against atheists in any mentionable way but rather people of a different religious outlook, kind of like the difference between atheists and hum lets see...every other religious outlook that exists. The rallying calls to inact laws against all religion have alrady come down from your leaders. And as is common with things of this nature, in your mind your still 100% on the side of justice.
NotBuyingIt

Mesa, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#264
Jan 21, 2010
 
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point is understood and was actually factored in my thinking.
But birds were used “ to detect if 'undetectable' deadly gasses"
And my point,we cannot DETECT all that surrounds us.
The fact remains - there is NO evidence of un-seen forces acting upon us that are not already explained sans 'entities'.

The deadly gas WAS detectable before the bird were used - people died / got sick for some yet to be understood reason.

Some probably said the caves were cursed too.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

9 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min cretin56 224,187
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 5 hr Igor Trip 21,398
Our world came from nothing? 8 hr Carchar king 221
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 9 hr Buck Crick 377
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 12 hr Reason Personified 272
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... Fri DonPanic 1,285
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu religionisillness 834
•••
•••