General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

I can tell you though, I sure wish historical documents were more trustworthy. That would make all of this much easier!

Sure would! And would get annoying people off the streets preaching their thoughts/beliefs...even though most of those are just crazy. I remember when I went out for my birthday this year there was a guy standing outside the bar and told me I could better my life if I accepted Jesus. I can still remember the look on his face when I told him I was already Christian, but thanks anyway. I know that is completely irrelevant to our discussions, but it just popped in my head for some reason.

My aim is to remove influences that compel me to practice religion, learn arguments both for and against God and determine for myself if it's still meaningful and worthwhile. You're right, I probably don't fit the definition of agnostic, I'm probably just ag-curious.

For religion (Christianity in particular)

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

The Sickness Unto Death by Søren Kierkegaard

many great minds have put their energies to the defense of Christianity. and i am not a religion hater or a god hater. it can be a beautiful thing, if it was only true... it's simply an IDEAL. like a love song, it's art, poetry. these things can be so beautiful and appreciated for what they are. but the danger is in wanting it to be reality, and the many mental sacrifices we're forced to make to make it fit, and i think in that compromise, we lose a part of ourselves in the process.

I guess what I was kind of getting at in a way, is that I don't think ALL religion is that bad. If my church wants to go an fix up/paint a underprivileged youth center on the south side of Chicago...ok. That's not "bad". But if we want to go to the south side and knock on every door and talk to people about Jesus Christ/God and tell them they should really come check out our church, that's another thing. I think religion is bad when it promotes it's followers to vocally promote their beliefs and teachings on those who do not ask to know.

To sum up my thoughts quickly before bed, I think the idea of religion is good. No one starts out with the idea of religion as something that will inspire countless deaths and crusades and whatnot. Well, maybe not no one, but whatever. Religion can be good; it can be bad. My goal would be to take out the unnecessary parts about faith, belief, God, etc. and instead focus on the good parts. We don't need a religion to tell us that murder is wrong. For those who say "without religion it would be anarchy!" I want them to be locked up immediately. If the only thing standing between me and that dude's trigger finger is The Bible, he's got issues. Instead of finding ways to continually segregate us as a people, we should simply fix up/paint the youth center as a group and out of the kindness of our hearts. Religion is often nothing more than a catalyst for doing those good things. We don't need it to do them. Unfortunately, it's also often a catalyst for all of the newsworthy occurrences.

Cliffs: let's just get along, help each other, and stop needing an excuse to do so.

And just to lighten the mood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo

Note: We can leave in the part about God if we keep it a personal thing. The problem is when it becomes more than a personal thing.

When looking for unbiased references, I don't generally recommend the works of an avid X on either side of the issue, but TGD is still good stuff.

You aren't less biased just because you aren't an avid supporter of either side of an argument. That's BS.

The strength of science lies in how easy it is to disprove a theory. Take evolution for example. We have incredible amounts of evidence that supports the theory, but if we even had one little piece of evidence to disprove it, evolution as a theory would fall. You don't need more evidence against than for a theory to say the theory is wrong. All you need is one little piece of evidence, and it all comes tumbling down.
.

Not even close.

Also, we have met one species of intelligent alien beings already. We haven't met any Gods.

You aren't less biased just because you aren't an avid supporter of either side of an argument. That's BS.

So if I purported that Joel Osteen was 100% unbiased and made an outstanding argument in "The God Fact" (not an actual book), then I presume you'd champion it just the same?

I realize you can be unbiased and an avid supporter at the same time, but we deal in probabilities around here. Chances are that Dawkins isn't 100% unbiased.

I can tell you though, I sure wish historical documents were more trustworthy. That would make all of this much easier!

What would be the point then. If God made you believe or showed himself so even the most cynical doubter..... what good would it do?

Obviously noone can be 100% unbiased, but to call Richard Dawkins biased implies that he is biased to some significant degree more than most intelligent people.

And what I said is still true. Strongly supporting one side of an argument does not make you biased.

What would be the point then. If God made you believe or showed himself so even the most cynical doubter..... what good would it do?

Um, then we'd know? I thought the debate was whether he existed. If he proved his existence, I would see that as being helpful to the debate.

Note: We can leave in the part about God if we keep it a personal thing. The problem is when it becomes more than a personal thing.

This is the one really good point you made I agree with. The Bible is very, very clear in my eyes on this one. The MINUTE a man, religion, or anything stands between you and God you have been hoodwinked. Religion is not needed to reach God. In my eyes it is the easiest way to miss the target.

Not even close.

Which part of the post are you referring to specifically?

@mastertex, I suspect that you may mean something different by the phrase "theory of evolution" than I'm taking that phrase to mean, care to explain? There is a huge amount of evidence supporting the notion that species evolve (animal and plant breeding being a fairly trivial one, several others have been mentioned in the thread), I don't think anyone who's studied anything having to do with genetics or population deviation would dispute that, I'm assuming you don't reject that idea, so what exactly is it you're rejecting?

fwiw, I also dispute the statement you quoted, but probably not for the same reasons. Falsification is a key aspect of the scientific process, but finding one contradiction to a theory/postulate does not necessarily result in rejecting the theory - it frequently results in modifying the theory/postulate.

@maglame, I hate to fall for it, but what intelligent alien species have we met?

Obviously noone can be 100% unbiased, but to call Richard Dawkins biased implies that he is biased to some significant degree more than most intelligent people.

I didn't intend to do so. I was merely stating that for someone on the fence, you might want to check out TGD and some other pro-faith book to balance it out.

And what I said is still true. Strongly supporting one side of an argument does not make you biased.

Yea, I already said I realize this.

@maglame, I hate to fall for it, but what intelligent alien species have we met?

Ourselves obviously.

slycebu, I wasn't trying to get anyone to fall for something when I brought up alien life forms. I'm not at all trying to trap people into anything. Just trying to get the discussion away from what it's been over the last 10-14 pages.

slycebu, I wasn't trying to get anyone to fall for something when I brought up alien life forms. I'm not at all trying to trap people into anything. Just trying to get the discussion away from what it's been over the last 10-14 pages.

Ah, no worries, not offended

@maglame, I hate to fall for it, but what intelligent alien species have we met?

Reptilians

viruses

I have begun to realize that people such as mastertex and Sneakers don't value logical thought or science in the way most of the world does.

And when that is the case, and you try to communicate to them via the language of science of logic, the conversation is basically over before it starts.

I'm convinced we could PROVE god was false (if such a thing was possible) using these methods and they still would not believe us.

So screw it. What's the point? It's like trying to get someone on board a train that's not on the tracks. It's never going to move, because the necessities aren't in place to get it going in the first place.

ad hominem, just saying...

"What things a man must learn in order to be able to apply the art of disputation, has been accurately shown by our philosophers; but with respect to the proper use of the things, we are entirely without practice. Only give to any of us, whom you please, an illiterate man to discuss with,, and he cannot discover how to deal with the man. But when he has moved the man a little, if he answers beside the purpose, he does not know how to treat him, but he then either abuses or ridicules him, and says, "He is an illiterate man; it is not possible to do anything with him." Now a guide, when he has found a man out of the road leads him into the right way: he does not ridicule or abuse him and then leave him. Do you also show this illiterate man the truth, and you will see that he follows. But so long as you do not show him the truth, do not ridicule him, but rather feel your own incapacity."
The Discourses By Epictetus, Book 2 Chapter 12

This is my last post on this in here. If you really want to understand my personal views on life and God and are not out to troll then hit me up in a private tell.

Evolution issues for me: How did the Universe come about? If you believe in God you have no teeth and you IQ must be under 100. Logic then: How can something come from nothing? Without a creator you can't get anything, let alone everything.

How can living creatures come from no life? How did a seed come to be? You can cross this plant and that plant but where is a new from nothing plant? “There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.” (Dr. Poppe) If everything living died today. All that is left is air/water/rock how does it get populated with living things again? Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation

Animal Evolution: Mutations destroy DNA code. Ask a Cancer victom how he feels about mutations being a good thing some time. Natural selection does not make new code. Picking bigger and bigger dogs to breed with eachother gets new big dogs, BUT you can make little dogs again by picking small ones out and breeding them. No animal breading has EVER made a gain in information just a rearrangement and loss of what is already there. Dark rabbits can start dying in a snow region and then through natural selection get lighter, but again they can noy make something other than a rabbit.

In my eyes Evolution is a belief system. Evolution -> meaning that such diverse creatures as whales, worms, hummingbirds, hadrosaurs, platypuses and presidents have evolved from the same first life-form... is a belief system. It certainly has not been proved to be a scientific fact.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.

But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.

People don't turn to Christ because it is like picking one car over another car. It is something you know will be an up hill battle. It is something you come to through life experience and some people let it turn them one way and others go another way. One becomes a Christian(or I did) because they know it is the truth to them and they can no longer live a lie. I sit here right now knowing in the future being a Christian is going to be a very hard road.

This thread has a .00% chance of changing my mind about it. I also think it has near that in chances for people who wanna doubt to doubt. So what is the point? Hope you guys figure it all out without me, as I have little time to argue about it with people who have no desire to understand my views.

Have fun and Peace be with you.

Yeah, I agree, having a discussion with someone who has no desire to understand where the other person is coming from is a waste of time, I'm signing off as well.

@nawhead, the Epictetus quote is quite awesome, thanks!

Where's that $#%@ "remove thread from My Threads" button?

This is my last post on this in here. If you really want to understand my personal views on life and God and are not out to troll then hit me up in a private tell.

Evolution issues for me: How did the Universe come about? If you believe in God you have no teeth and you IQ must be under 100. Logic then: How can something come from nothing? Without a creator you can't get anything, let alone everything.

Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life, that would be abiogenesis. But to answer your question, amino acids, which are the building blocks of natural life can be formed through natural chemical reactions unrelated to life. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiments, which simulated the conditions of the Earth 4 billion years ago.

How can living creatures come from no life? How did a seed come to be? You can cross this plant and that plant but where is a new from nothing plant? “There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.” (Dr. Poppe) If everything living died today. All that is left is air/water/rock how does it get populated with living things again? Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation

I don't think any scientist believes that it "just happens" out of thin air. There has to be certain specific criteria, which just so happen to have taken place on Earth.

Animal Evolution: Mutations destroy DNA code. Ask a Cancer victom how he feels about mutations being a good thing some time. Natural selection does not make new code. Picking bigger and bigger dogs to breed with eachother gets new big dogs, BUT you can make little dogs again by picking small ones out and breeding them. No animal breading has EVER made a gain in information just a rearrangement and loss of what is already there. Dark rabbits can start dying in a snow region and then through natural selection get lighter, but again they can noy make something other than a rabbit.

Some mutations are harmful, some helpful, most are neither. Evolution also doesn't say that a rabbit can reproduce and make anything other than another rabbit.

In my eyes Evolution is a belief system. Evolution -> meaning that such diverse creatures as whales, worms, hummingbirds, hadrosaurs, platypuses and presidents have evolved from the same first life-form... is a belief system. It certainly has not been proved to be a scientific fact.

Yes, yes it has.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

This is incorrect. Also, you don't seem to understand what the word "theory" means, as it pertains to the scientific community.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.

But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.

People don't turn to Christ because it is like picking one car over another car. It is something you know will be an up hill battle. It is something you come to through life experience and some people let it turn them one way and others go another way. One becomes a Christian(or I did) because they know it is the truth to them and they can no longer live a lie. I sit here right now knowing in the future being a Christian is going to be a very hard road.

This thread has a .00% chance of changing my mind about it. I also think it has near that in chances for people who wanna doubt to doubt. So what is the point? Hope you guys figure it all out without me, as I have little time to argue about it with people who have no desire to understand my views.

Have fun and Peace be with you.

Peace with you as well.