On Friday, the NPR chat show Fresh Air with Terry Gross (aired on over 400 stations from WHYY in Philadelphia) carried two interviews on science and religion. They might claim the discussion was balanced, but not when you consider the time allotted, as listed on the NPR web page:
Richard Dawkins: An Argument for Atheism (27 min 41 sec)
Francis Collins: A Scientist's Case for God (10 min 50 sec)
Apparently, an almost three-to-one time difference is a fair fight on NPR.
In case that's not imbalanced enough, the Dawkins page also helpfully links to another 30-minute NPR interview with Dawkins about his book The God Delusion on the show Talk of the Nation. The interviews are repeats from last year, but NPR doesn't generally tell listeners about that when the show airs.
Comments Policy
They need more time.
March 12, 2008 - 08:43 ET by mattmThey need more time.
I'm not surprised. It
March 12, 2008 - 08:44 ET by Free ThinkerI'm not surprised. It takes alot more faith and far fetched explanations to try and convince someone there is no God than it does to state the obvious that there is.
I am surprised
March 12, 2008 - 09:06 ET by trthskrI am surprised that someone who claims to be a 'free thinker' states that the existance of a supreme being is obvious. It is not up to non-believers to prove your god exists. There is no faith involved. After all, faith is blind acceptance without evidence or proof.
I have no faith that you will understand.
I am surprisedMarch 12, 2008
March 12, 2008 - 09:35 ET by futbolisgreat1I am surprisedMarch 12, 2008 - 10:06 ET by trthskr
I am surprised that someone who claims to be a 'free thinker' states that the existance of a supreme being is obvious. It is not up to non-believers to prove your god exists. There is no faith involved. After all, faith is blind acceptance without evidence or proof.
I have no faith that you will understand.
Wow, are you not doing the same thing. Where is your hardcore, 100%, solid, can't be disproved proof that God doesn't exist? Doesn't it befall on you, if you are going to say that there is no God, to proof that there is no God.
1) There is proof all around us that there is a God. Those that don't want to believe blind themselves to these proves.
2) You assume and attack religious, God believing individuals as not being free thinkers. Nice way to try to change someone's mind. Attack them. geez. Ever heard of Free Will?
3) You are also using blind faith to make the claim that there is no God.
It is obvious by your statements that you are the one that doesn't understand. The one using centuries old arguments that have been used by blind followers of Atheism.
Free Thinking
March 12, 2008 - 13:25 ET by austinhookSeems to me that having faith, by definition, an apriori and fixed state of mind, is incompatible with the concept of free thinking. Surely someone who has religious faith may be free thinking about other topics, but why he or she would want to consider faith as part of free thinking, seems like an attempt to make language meaningless. Faith may be correct, comforting, or an element of salvation for the soul, but no need to claim it as part of free thinking.
<i> There is proof all around us that there is a God. Those that don't want to believe blind themselves to these proves. </i>
Well, there is also proof all around us that there is no God, at least by the same standards of proof, or at least that is what appears to be the case, as far as I have been able to observe.
So both the believer and non-believer are justified in making the claim, unless they want to refine what they mean by "proof". I don't personally claim any great skill in evaluating worldly evidence for the existance of God, but it seems to me that proof that there is or isn't a God ought to be blindingly obvious -- all I can say is that neither appears to the case upon my superficial glance. I am happy, either way. Let there be a God or not. So I don't feel I have a priori prejudice on the subject, and I don't see why I should be less capable of evaluating straight forward evidence on this subject, any more than when dealing with any other topic. I am sure my experience is common with others, so there is no point in repeated statements about proof of God being obvious, for or against. If it were, there would be no debate at all.
Your feeding the trools!
March 12, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Lastlibertariantrthskr; If he/she could understand your argument the argument would be redundant.
Francis Collins: A Scientist's Case for God (10 min 50 sec) That's 10min and 50 sec more than it should be. If they gave equal time for all the religions, this show would still be running on...
It is up to non-believers to
March 12, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Free ThinkerIt is up to non-believers to prove that God does not exist. I'll give you one example - Jesus. Explain not only the miracles he performed but also the fact that Jesus was killed and then came back to life. There were over 600 eye witnesses. I have never got a plausible explanation from an atheist to this question. I expect you will try to just dodge it or ignore it. What other historical events do you not believe? What evidence do you have that there is no God? Hello? Are you still there?
Your an Atheist too. I just
March 12, 2008 - 21:26 ET by LastlibertarianYour an Atheist too. I just believe in one less god.
lastlibertarian
March 12, 2008 - 21:33 ET byA-theist means no god, for you to believe in one less god means you believe in
-1 god? Satan?
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Thank God for...
March 12, 2008 - 08:45 ET by SyriusTim,
...Dawkins. It's about time for people to start believing in themselves and forgo a omniscient & omnipotent being in charge of their lives. We, as humans, need to see a break from the shackles of religious thought and its inherent destruction of the human spirit. I believe we should view religious texts as literature such as Shakespeare instead of literal documents used to kill others. Before the rest of this crowd starts with the attacks, breathe in, take a deep breath, count to ten, and reread what I have said. There are to many people from all walks of life killing each other over the writings of men. It's got to stop at one point before we kill everyone on the planet over who's book is better.
Bring it on...I wait for the onslaught.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius, I'll only address
March 12, 2008 - 08:52 ET by motherbeltSyrius, I'll only address this part of what you said:
forgo a omniscient & omnipotent being in charge of their lives.
I don't have time this AM to get into a long discussion about it, but some of us don't believe that God controls our lives. We believe that God gave us free will.
God gave you free will? Why?
March 12, 2008 - 09:47 ET by SyriusMB,
I guess it follows this logic...
Theological doctrine stated that God allows human beings to be tempted into evil, so by personal decision each individual may "freely" elect to resist temptation or not. The doctrine was developed in answer to the argument that God could prevent sin if he wanted to, and because he did not prevent it, there was something wrong with him, not with humanity. As 2 Esdras states: "It had been better not to have given the Earth unto Adam; or else, when it was given him, to have restrained him from from sinning. For what profit is it for men now in this present time to live in heaviness, and after death to look for punishment?"
The problem was to absolve God from suspicion of a frivolous malice, much like a child teasing a dog with food, then punishes the dog for eating it. If God was all-knowing then he must have known in advance what man would choose, which would take the element of surprise out of human sins Whereas, on the other hand, if God couldn't foresee what man would choose, and could be surprised by human actions, he wasn't all-knowing.
Is that what you mean?
Maybe I should expand it to Johannes Erigena piously trying to thrash his way out of the paradox with a new dogma of "divine ignorance" but he succeeds in demonstrating that God fails to understand what he created. Erigena states-"There is another kind of ignorance in God, inasmuch as he may be said not to know what things he foreknows and predestines until they have appeared experientially in the course of created events...There is a kind of divine ignorance, in that God may be said to be ignorant of things not yet made manifest in their effects through experience of their action and operation; of which, nevertheless, he holds the invisible cause in himself, by himself created, and to himself known."
These subtleties add up to a statement that God doesn't know what he knows, with a hidden conclusion that man is smarter than God, because man (according to Erigena) knows all about what God knows and what God doesn't know. So troublesome did the doctrine of free will (in which you believe to be given to you by God) that some sects of Protestant sects, such as Calvinist Presbyterianism, abandoned it altogether in favor of predestination, stating that every person was already saved or damned from birth by God's unalterable decree. This idea restored God's omniscience, but eroded the incentive to live a godly life.
Go ahead and cherry pick what you want or like. It goes back to my original premise of seeing the Bible as a work of Literature instead of believing it as the literal Word of God. We should enjoy the words transcribed for what they are- a part of our language and our history on how to live with each other.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrus, you have got it so
March 12, 2008 - 09:52 ET by bassndudeSyrus, you have got it so wrong. You really dont have a clue, do you? Its like you are trying to tell someone what their friend is saying in a letter. You cant do it. It really sounds to me like your reading other peoples mail.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Reread what I'm saying...
March 12, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Syriusbassndude,
Prove it to be so. The fallacy lies in trying to believe fiction as a reality. Ask some Brits about whether or not Sherlock Holmes was a real person and they'll tell you he existed (he didn't exist by the way, he was a fictional character created by a man called Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.)
Cherrio,
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
for those who believe, no
March 12, 2008 - 10:14 ET by TruthMongerfor those who believe, no explanation is necessary
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible:)
so it's a draw, have a nice day
Syrius, While I don't
March 12, 2008 - 10:28 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
While I don't usually like Wikipedia, I think it does a good job arguing for it in this piece. I would urge you before you continue to debate this subject that you go ahead and read St. Agustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Also, it is impossible to understand Free Will completly, why? Because you can't, we humans can't understand the fact that God doesn't exist in time.
You are trying to understand God and Free Will using human limitations, using our three demensional, time based world. You can't and you won't since God doesn't exist in time, He doesn't have our limitations. that is why the author that you brought up in your previous post is so wrong. He is using human understanding, human limitations to try to explain away Free Will. It is a good try, but not even close.
but go ahead, read the piece below and honestly, try to read St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas take on Free will. Incredible hard reading, but if you understand it, I can guarantee you that many of your questions and doubts will be answered.
[edit] In Catholicism
Theologians of the Catholic Church universally embrace the idea of free will, but generally do not view free will as existing apart, from or in contradiction to grace. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on free will, with Augustine focusing on the importance of free will in his responses to the Manichaeans, and also on the limitations of a concept of unlimited free will as denial of grace, in his refutations of Pelagius. Catholic Christianity's emphasis on free will and grace is often contrasted with predestination in Reformed Protestant Christianity, especially after the Counter-Reformation, but in understanding differing conceptions of free will it is just as important to understand the differing conceptions of the nature of God, focusing on the idea that God can be all-powerful and all-knowing even while people continue to exercise free will, because God does not exist in time (see the link to Catholic Encyclopedia below for more).
God does not exist in time?
March 12, 2008 - 13:50 ET by SyriusFutboil,
Simply...Who created time? If God created time for us, I suppose, he would understand time to be practical for our existence, not his. So, understanding your logic, then he could be everywhere at once without limitations on his dimensionality? Interesting, especially since it seems from your statement,"He doesn't have our limitations.", you have some kind of better understanding than most on God's state of affairs. I'm not sure if I could follow you off a cliff with such a statement. I'm not sold.
Also, our limitations in a three dimensional world with time could never allow us to think of higher order mathematics involving multiple dimensions? You might want to tell all those mathematicians to stop working on their string theories since it's just a waste of 'time'...
As for St Augustine, I quote...
"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
As for Aquinas- a posteriori arguments for God's existence which rely upon inspection of the world. Simply, the world exists, so by further inspection, God exists.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy,
March 12, 2008 - 14:03 ET by tracheostomy:raising hand:
Is this post open to everyone here, or just aimed at Futbol only?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I was wondering...
March 12, 2008 - 14:07 ET by SyriusPJ,
... when he was going to need your help. PJ, I enjoy your arguments and questions since they tend to be free of personal insults and attacks. Dive in, the water is cold, but, oh, so refreshing!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Thanks Sy!
March 12, 2008 - 14:29 ET by tracheostomySy: Simply...Who created time? If God created time for us, I suppose, he would understand time to be practical for our existence, not his. So, understanding your logic, then he could be everywhere at once without limitations on his dimensionality? Interesting, especially since it seems from your statement,"He doesn't have our limitations.", you have some kind of better understanding than most on God's state of affairs. I'm not sure if I could follow you off a cliff with such a statement. I'm not sold.
Why not? Knowing and doing are two completely different things. A model of a thing does not have to be a 100% exact reconstruction of it.
Sy: Also, our limitations in a three dimensional world with time could never allow us to think of higher order mathematics involving multiple dimensions? You might want to tell all those mathematicians to stop working on their string theories since it's just a waste of 'time'...
Honestly, I dunno where you're going with this.
Sy: (quoting Augustine) "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
Is this meant to scare someone?
So we have automatic dishwashers. Did that save us time?
So we have antibiotics. What did that really gain us, other than more resistant pathogens and an extended lifetime of chasing complete and utter vanity?
Did the clever inventions that result from our scientific curiosity come with all the utopian promises attached? No, only a greater attention paid to the creation, rather than the creator.
So I don't understand what is wrong with Augustine's statement. Is he a hypocrite for saying so? Is he not simply stating that curiosity cannot be assumed a virtue in and of itself?
Sy: As for Aquinas- a posteriori arguments for God's existence which rely upon inspection of the world. Simply, the world exists, so by further inspection, God exists.
And to Syrius, that is somehow a much worse argument than. . .
"The world exists, so by further inspection, absolutely nothing exists apart from what we have inspected."
(???)
OR
"The world exists, so by further inspection, we can only assume a pattern of eternal inspection and discovery."
(???)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Nice...
March 12, 2008 - 16:03 ET by SyriusPJ,
So, as to understand Aquinas' five proofs which the unread would surely have missed in this argument of ours. Here they are*-
1 The Unmoved Mover
Nothing moves without a
prior mover. This leads us to an infinite regress, from which the only
escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something
we call God.
2 The Uncaused Cause
Nothing
is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are
pushed back into infinite regress. This has to be terminated by a first
cause, which we call God.
3 The Cosmological Argument
There
must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since
physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical
to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.
4 The Argument from Degree
We notice that
things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or
perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a
maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness
cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set
the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.
5 The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design
Things
in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been
designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed.
Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God. Aquinas
himself used the analogy of an arrow moving towards a target, but a
modern heat-seeking anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purpose
better.
Not a posteriori arguments, PJ?
For those who need a brief descripition-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_(philosophy)
Another Aquinas' quote which is excellent...
"Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches."
Syrius
*http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article618796.ece
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
and all of this is based
March 12, 2008 - 16:08 ET by TruthMongerand all of this is based upon our incredibly meager and virtually worthless human congnitive abilities, correct...?
Moving right along. . .
March 12, 2008 - 16:36 ET by tracheostomy"Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to an infinite regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God."
Like I've stated before, this could be anything. Aquinas puts all his chips on a Judeo-Christian cause. So do I. So what's the big deal?
"Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are
pushed back into infinite regress. This has to be terminated by a first
cause, which we call God."
Noted as above.
"There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since
physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical
to bring them into existence, and that something we call God."
Also noted as above.
"We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness
cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set
the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God."
Correct. I refer to this as a standard that exists outside of ourselves. The "we" in TA's case is of course his speaking on behalf of Judeo-Christian theists.
"Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been
designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God. Aquinas himself used the analogy of an arrow moving towards a target, but a modern heat-seeking anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purpose better."
I agree with this.
Sy: Not a posteriori arguments, PJ?
I never said they weren't. It was comparing Aquinas' a posteriori argument with other ones that you have supported in the past. It then becomes a matter of a question of which has more value and why.
Sy: Another Aquinas' quote which is excellent...
"Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches."
:applause:
Clever. I'll give you that. That quote hinges entirely on the definition of "the Church."
My definition would differ greatly from Futbol's. Mine would also differ from TM's.
The church Christ spoke of in Matt 16:18 is indeed an infallible guide. It is also both holy, catholic (<-- note the grammar), and apostolic.
But the Bible also speaks of false Christs and false prophets. Also as it is written, "the wheat and tares" are allowed to grow together.
Thus, the church as we see it is fallable, but only from our perspective.
But back on topic, I have no idea what Syrius is getting at, other than comparing Aquinas' a posteriori argument with the other ones that Syrius has supported in the past. We're forced to choose between surrendering to Christ, lying to ourselves, or facing a mental breakdown similar to Nietzsche's.
On a personal note, I've encountered all three.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
sounds like our definition
March 12, 2008 - 17:15 ET by TruthMongersounds like our definition of the church is exactly the same, actually:)
Sorry Truthie. . .
March 12, 2008 - 17:38 ET by tracheostomyThe gates of Hell officially prevailed against your church on March 6. Not that it wasn't doctrinally hemorrhaging long before that, but Free Stinker confirmed the death of your church on that day.
Why don't you follow this up with something pithy and vague, and go troll on your own thread?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
hyuk - what a card
March 12, 2008 - 17:44 ET by TruthMongerthe church of Christ is dead?!?!?
where's my fax dammit
or as you love to say - quote me, dude:)
Nothing to quote because. . .
March 12, 2008 - 17:54 ET by tracheostomyI didn't say that you said anything in particular.
I'm saying it was confirmed March 6.
Further, you called me both a demon and Satan, which confirms my statement here that our definitions of the church do not agree.
Either you contradict yourself here, or over there, but the both of us cannot agree in both threads.
So there's your damn quote, and stop wasting our time.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
oh that christianity
March 13, 2008 - 09:41 ET by TruthMongeroh that
christianity basics?
yeah, good one - you really got me there:)
(click here for massive pity)
Syrius, Hmmm.... I think
March 12, 2008 - 17:14 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius, Hmmm....
I think you have over simplified St. Thomas Aquinas work, but it is a beginning and I don't have the time or energy to go deeply into his writings and thoughts.
Also, you cherry picked St. Thomas Aquinas quotes, put them out of context and you made them sound like something they aren't ment to say. C'mon Syrius, age old trick of Atheist. Put St. Aquinas quotes in context, they actually demolish your anti-God arguments.
Regardless, here is a question for you. If God doesn't exist, right? Then we are led to the conclusion that the universe, nature, in some form or another has always existed, right? That the unvirse is infinite, correct?
If the universe/nature is infinite, then how come it is not perfect? It has had infinite time to perfect itself, correct? Anything that it is infinite, has had infinite time to perfect itself, thus it should be 100% perfect. Say evolution is correct? well, evolution has had infinite time to perfect itself, how come humans, animals, plants, nature is not perfect?
once again, Syrius, it seems that you love to question that which you disagree with, but you love, adore to attach yourself, without question to that which you agree with.
When's the last time that you question the likes of Richard Dawkins and their credibility? But you sure do question the Bible and God a lot. A bit convinient for you, don't you think?
The short story. . .
March 12, 2008 - 17:31 ET by tracheostomyFut: When's the last time that you question the likes of Richard Dawkins and their credibility?
Because Botg and others here already did it for him several times, and he eventually abandoned it.
My personal fave is Feb_13_1:16
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Yeah, Syrius has a
March 12, 2008 - 19:30 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Yeah, Syrius has a seroius problem with this whole thing of questioning authority and blah, blah, blah that he constantly claims we should all do.
It is obvious that he only likes to question authority and theories that do not agree with his believes, everything else, according to Syrius, should not be questioned.
I find this to be the case with most, if not all atheists and agnostics I have ran into. They love to question the validity of religion and the existance of God, but they grabbed unto Evolution and atheism as religious dogma, unsure how Syrius doesn't see it, or pretends not to see it.
Furthermoe, I have also noticed when an argument or theory is given to Syrius that his precious anti-God authors don't have an answer to, he also doesn't have an answer and he attacks the messenger. Once again, very common in atheist and agnostics.
I just find it amusing that he loves to preach to everyone on NB that is a Christian and a God fearing person how we are all brainwashed, that we don't know how to think on our own, etc, etc and he goes ahead and grabs on to atheist believes like there is not tomorrow.
I will always say it,
Syrius religion is Science,
Scientists his priests
Science books his Bible.....
I'll go back to it if you'd like...
March 13, 2008 - 09:36 ET by SyriusPJ,
Threads seem to exist for about a week or so, trying to keep up with current events seems to grab everyone's attention- maybe ADHD. I'll continue to play with old threads if you want as long as no one gets upset. In the past, I've seen people get upset when you go back and try to rewrite or have a last word. I thought I'd respect it. But I'm game if you are. Unless we recreate another thread and build upon what we've learned, maybe someone will become more enlightened like me.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
maybe someone will become
March 13, 2008 - 19:43 ET bymaybe someone will become more enlightened like me.
LOL lower the cone of silence
Maybe you can play a nice game of Syrius says with your 'enlightened' cronies
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Syrius, Sy:
March 12, 2008 - 17:32 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
Sy: Simply...Who created time? If God created time for us, I suppose, he would understand time to be practical for our existence, not his. So, understanding your logic, then he could be everywhere at once without limitations on his dimensionality? Interesting, especially since it seems from your statement,"He doesn't have our limitations.", you have some kind of better understanding than most on God's state of affairs. I'm not sure if I could follow you off a cliff with such a statement. I'm not sold.
1) Who created time, God.
2) Of course God has a much better understanding of time than humans do, He created it. Stop trying to get your head around this concept, you can't, you won't. You are thinking with human limitations.
3) Yes, God can be everywhere, anywhere, at any time, yes, God has no limitations.
4) I give you an argument that you can't refute and you try to debate it by saying, ,"Interesting, especially since it seems from your statement,"He doesn't have our limitations.", you have some kind of better understanding than most on God's state of affairs." Care to explain how this helps your point, that there is no God? All you have done is make an attempt at putting me down. Trying to make me sound arrogant, have you looked in the mirror lately? So, let me ask you, you seem to type away, and claim that you have a better understanding than most when it comes to God, that there is no God. Care to explain how that is different than my argument? You demand that others question authority and their believes, but once again, you don't follow your own advice.
5) Well, with your arguments, it is you the one that seems to have a better understanding that there is no God, right? I mean, geez Syrius. I mean, I don't think anyone here would follow you off a cliff. But you certainly would follow Richard Dawkins and anyone else that you believed helped you disprove God off a cliff, right?
I am unsure what you are trying to accomplish with this statement, since it can be used against you.
6) Science just proves the existance of God. It does it all the time on a daily basis. It is a fallacy that science and God are against each other, since God created science. Scientist can work all they want and try to discover dimisions outside of our 3-D world, but as of right now, much of that is hypothetical world and things of science fiction. Who knows, it might happen one day, but not today.
7) I will always say this about you Syrius,
Science is your god,
Science books your Bible
Scientists your priests.
You seem to love to question matters of religion, but you sure do grab on hard to scientific theories and hypothesis, Evolution, etc, etc without questioning.
I'm punching out. It's 4
March 12, 2008 - 18:01 ET by tracheostomyI'm punching out. It's 4 p.m. by my watch and I got places to be. I still have no idea what point Syrius was trying to make.
I'll check back later though.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
PJ
March 12, 2008 - 18:11 ET byassertion without substance. Actual infinities do not exist in this creation it's why it's called Quantum Mechanics. Science again backs Aquinas
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
You're like a neutrino...
March 13, 2008 - 09:50 ET by Syriusbotg,
...appearing out of nowhere. I've missed our discussions. How's that puncuated evolution working for you? By now,I thought your species would have ceased abruptly just like your threads.
Syrius
PS...I love your tagline, my hope is for those to venture through the old thread and find the hilarity in you and your handle! Plus the videos, what a riot! Gotta love the elephants and the bro thing! Thanks for the memories! Great work as my straight man! Chill, bro, chill! Hahahahaha...ROFLMAO!
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Cleopatra
March 13, 2008 - 19:50 ET byperhaps they'll play some Syrius says with you
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Syrius,Are you then
March 12, 2008 - 11:04 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
Are you then saying that we humans have no Free Will? that we are mindless robots just doing what our nature, our humanity forces us to do?
so, the man that rapes a woman, couldn't help it, he just followed his pre-programmed existincts. So, why should we punish him?
You fail to see that most of our laws and punishments ARE based on the existance of Free Will.
Free Will is somewhat similar, not completly, but similar to the free will parents give their children as these get older. How many times did my parents know that I was going to screw up, but they gave me the freedom to screw up, why? so I could learn from my mistakes.
Furthermore, war, murder, rape, etc, etc, etc are the consequences of humans using Free Will. Free will is great, but it can lead to dire consequences. These are also the consequences of humans using their Free Will to not follow God's plan.
I mean, once again, Syriu, to deny Free Will is to believe that humans have no ability to make choices and that the choices we make are pre-programmed into us. I guess that is a great Liberal believe, right? The murderer couldn't help it, it had to do with his parents abusing him, right?
As I said, Syrus...other
March 12, 2008 - 11:53 ET by bassndudeAs I said, Syrus...other peoples mail. When you become a part of the family, perhaps then, you will begin to understand. Right now, it seems it is beyound your comprehension.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Syrius, it is certainly
March 12, 2008 - 10:05 ET by Ruths husband BenSyrius, it is certainly true that the concept of free will has been a tough issue to deal with for thousands of years. I do not have all of the answers, but let me put in this thought:
Free will is a desirable thing, I think you agree with that. But it comes with a cost.
In order for us to truly have free will we have to be capable of making really bad choices and really good choices. If, no matter what you chose, God cleaned up your mess for you ("that's not really what you want, here let me fix this for you."), would that be "free will"?
No, in order for free will to be free it must be freely bestowed. The result, as sure as night follows day, is that man will make horrendous choices. Concentration camps, slavery, sexual deviants, the list goes on. All of these things are clearly bad, but they result from us being given something that is clearly good.
People who bemoan free will and its consequences and blame God for the ramifications of free will perhaps haven't thought it through. It is similar, I think, to the thought that you can have security or you can have freedom, but you can never have both at the same time. There is no part of me that would sacrifice freedom for security and there is no part of me that doesn't understand the incredible gift I have been given, the choice to freely choose or freely reject God. But I also understand that if I chose to reject Him, the next thing I would do, as you have, is rebel against the notion that He exists, because the implications are astounding and eternal.
Now I did not completely explain free will (nor can I) and there are probably theological holes in my argument big enough to drive a truck through, but there it is.
Later,
Ben
Syrius, Is there any
March 12, 2008 - 10:08 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
Is there any thought or believe that is your own? Wow, you just spend a whole lot of time explaining why God doesn't exist using someone elses writings, then you go ahead and insult and attack those that believe in God because they use the Bible as a source to proof that there is a God.
So, let's get this straight. You consider the Bible a work of literacy, worhty of reading and learning from it for literary purposes, not to prove that there is a God, right? Yet, you want to use words and books that you like to disprove that there is a God. Hmmm....using your logic, I will tell you that your books can be use for literary purposes and their "logic", trying to disprove God, should not be taken seriously since these are words written by mere man.
So, Syrius, according to you, humans can write with great logic and understanding works that disprove God, but humans can't write with great logic and understanding works that prove the existance of God?
do you not see the fallacy in your statements and in your believes?
According to you, men can write books that disprove the existance of God, but men can't write books that prove the existance of God.
By the way, your use of the dog example is completly wrong, since to bring it to the level of the relationship between God and humans, you would have to assume that we humans can give dogs Free Will.
For what it's worth, my 2 cents....
March 12, 2008 - 11:54 ET by lotrSyrius, referring to free will, wrote:
"The doctrine was developed in answer to the argument that God could prevent sin if he wanted to, and because he did not prevent it, there was something wrong with him, not with humanity."
Now, I am not a theologian (although I do take great interest in theology), but methinks that free will is one of those self-evident truths, a "doctrine" that one may arrive at by his own natural lights. The reason I can confidently make such a claim is simply by assuming, for the sake of argument, that the opposite is true: That "free will" is a falsehood, or an illusion. If "free will" is a falsehood, then it follows that we are all mere machines and "slaves" to a mindless and meaningless set of environmental "forces." This means that there is no morality (right or wrong) since there is no choice for right or wrong. This also means that there is no love, since love is possible only through free will (e.g., one cannot be "forced" to love). And you'll pardon my full circle back to theology, but it only stands to reason that this is why God created us with free will, so that we can love as He loves.
It is
March 12, 2008 - 12:18 ET by cvgbuckeyeIt is quite simple and not complicated:
1. Why do people marry and decide to have children?
2. Would it not be better to just purchase a mindless robot that mechanically strides about the house while repeating "mommy and daddy, I love you"?
3. By electing #2, there would be no chance of misbehavior, drug use, bad grades, teen pregnancy, tatoos, etc.
4. If you don't understand #1, #2 and #3, there is no need for #4 or any further.
CVG. . .
March 12, 2008 - 12:58 ET by tracheostomyIf you're going where I think you're going, I think you're trying to say that in order for us to truly love Him in return, it must be done with free will and full knowledge of the alternatives, which were. . .
1. Something we did not know before the fall, even though we had the free will at the time.
2. Something we lost after the fall, even though we had knowledge.
In this, we love Him because He first loved us.
How do we know this without the knowledge first given through His divine truth?
How do we know that without the gratitute given for His sacrificial gift?
How are we even grateful to begin with, without the knowledge of what we first threw away?
That's the nature of both the divine plan and our agreement with it as Christians. We needed both knowledge and free will in order to be neither truly robotic or truly rebellious. Both the knowledge and free will were given by divine grace, through faith alone, and not of ourselves (lest we have something to boast of).
In this mankind will be preserved for eternity.
Those individuals who rejected it never wanted it to begin with; those individuals who accept it didn't know they even wanted it, until their hearts were changed by divine grace. Otherwise, everyone that ever lived would have perished.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Yes
March 12, 2008 - 13:29 ET by cvgbuckeyeYes trach. And additionally, just in the Old Testament, we are given about 10 million examples of God's covenant with man, man breaking the covenant in rebelliousness to God, man falling into dire straits, man asking for God's forgiveness, God's forgiveness of man, man rebels again and over and over and over again.
NO ONE but our God can possess that much grace over the last 6000 years. It is not human.
BUT, we do run out of chances----------at the moment of death.
Point of clarification. . .
March 12, 2008 - 13:43 ET by tracheostomyCVG: "BUT, we do run out of chances----------at the moment of death."
Agreed. I refer to this ^^^ as "common grace" from God's POV, and the general call to the gospel that a Christian is ordered to make. Every day you are allowed to remain breathing is a reflection of God's common mercy, but as you have stated CVG, the clock isn't going to run on forever.
The orders of Christ are to make disciples (listeners), but not to redeem. That's the job of God alone.
Our job is to give the general warning of repentance and coming judgement, so that all will be entirely without excuse on the day of His coming.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Agreed w/Syrius. . .
March 12, 2008 - 13:00 ET by tracheostomyHe makes a fascinating observation here.
S: These subtleties add up to a statement that God doesn't know what he knows, with a hidden conclusion that man is smarter than God, because man (according to Erigena) knows all about what God knows and what God doesn't know. So troublesome did the doctrine of free will (in which you believe to be given to you by God) that some sects of Protestant sects, such as Calvinist Presbyterianism, abandoned it altogether in favor of predestination, stating that every person was already saved or damned from birth by God's unalterable decree. This idea restored God's omniscience, but eroded the incentive to live a godly life.
His only assumptions here. . .
(a.) . . .is that the Calvinists abandoned something to begin with.
(b.) . . .is that the Calvinists made something else up to cover for God.
(c.) . . .is that living a godly life is incentive-driven and under the authority of the flesh (shows a lack of understanding of the doctrine of sanctification).
But otherwise, yeah. . .he's really on the right track. I love his jabs about surprising God as well.
Amazing (and rather shameful) that a liberal atheist such as himself can have such a more well-developed theology than some conservative NBers. What I don't think Syrius realizes though, is that the Bible actually irons it all out verbatum following this (amazingly honest) POV.
Sure, to you he may have meant it for evil, but. . .
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
God and Freewill
March 12, 2008 - 18:05 ET by LionKingGod gave man freewill because He is all about relationship. He does not demand that we worship him. He requires certain things from His followers though. He expects obedience to his rules as they are there for our benefit. There is only one unforgiveable sin.
John 3:16 explains that God sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins...redeem us. It is about desiring a relationship with us.
As far as trying to explain ominscience and omnipresence...just because we do not have a physical understanding or rational explanation does not mean that it is not possible. Part of the concept of a supreme being is that He can do things beyond our comprehension.
[ The last time I checked, God is the only one qualified to be God. ]
Well if you are talking
March 12, 2008 - 08:53 ET by taterWell if you are talking about the Koran then yes...that's the book people are getting the idea to kill other people. That was written by a man (or something else).
When you talk about the Bible....there are many areas that specifically point out "you shall not kill."
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
The Atheist Experiment has Failed
March 12, 2008 - 09:10 ET by exLibLet's get "syrius" here.
The former Soviet Union, otherwise know as the USSR began a campaign of forced atheism.
While I am no expert on the logitics, my understanding is that millions of people were executed in order to have a "clean" populace.
For at least a generation people were forced to be atheist by law.
When the Iron curtain was lifted tens of thousands of people who had never even heard of Jesus Christ flooded into Churches and confessed "Jesus is Lord".
The need for God is built in, some have the ability to either shut that need out or not recognize it for what it is and look elsewhere.
The most interesting part of the quote you use is "The Destruction of the Human Spirit". I was under the impression Atheists didn't believe in a "Human Spirit".
However, taking the quote at face value there can be no greater destruction of the Spirt than that which modern science inflicts on man through our current education system.
Syrius, 1) I would urge
March 12, 2008 - 09:27 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
1) I would urge you to read God is no Delusion: A refutation of Richard Dawkins. If you truly are a person that questions all authority in all matters, you would right now go to Amazon.com, Borders, whatever and read this book, since it questions Dawkins credibility. Are you up for the challange?
2) As motherbelt said, God doesn't control my life. I control my life, it is called Free Will. Try to understand it before you bash that which you obviously do not understand.
3) Wars have been fought over religion, very true. But more wars have been fought over secular "topics" and more people have died under the rule of secular governments. Here are some 20th century examples: WWI and WWII had nothing to do with religion. The first WW was all about territory and empires. Over simplifying, but WWI had nothing to do with Religion. WWII was also about territory, empires and Darwinism, Evolution, right? What was it that the Nazis believed? That the Aryan race is on top of the latter, the ultimate being. They based their belives on Darwinism, Evolution. Are you ready to condemn Evolution because it was used to jusity the murder of over 6 million Jews, Gypsies, etc?
Another example, China and the Soviet Union. Two secular nations/governments which systematically and pursposedly tortured, terrorized and murdered over 100 million of their population. Atheists imposing their believes on others and those that didn't capitulate, were sent to the slaughter. Using your logic, isn't then Atheism terrible, horrible since it has led to the death of hundreds of millions?
I could give you hundreds of more examples that expand from Ancient History until today, in which secular reasons were used to start wars, slaughter millions of humans. Is secularism bad because of this? Look into the expansion of Ancient Rome, the countless wars fought for the expansion of the Roman Empire, which had NOTHING to do with religion.
http://www.tfp.org/m... Si
March 12, 2008 - 09:51 ET by taterhttp://www.tfp.org/m...
Since we are talking about communism and religion...this website provides an excellent story about how Christians used the rosary to withdraw the Soviets from Austria. Note that not one bullet was used to make them leave but prayer and until the dismantling of the USSR...the Soviets didn't give up any country that it had government control of.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Normal 0 <i>Another
March 12, 2008 - 11:22 ET by LastlibertarianNormal
0
<i>Another example, China and the Soviet Union. Two secular
nations/governments which systematically and purposely tortured, terrorized and
murdered over 100 million of their population.</i>
But communism and nazism are very much like a
religion, so is liberalism. Their blind
acceptance of an idea based on feeling rather than observing it’s
ability to stand the test of scientific methodology. Wishing something to
be rather than accepting observed reality. Liberals require an ever-larger
government in attempts to fine failing social programs and theists acquire ever
more footnotes, disclaimers, new branches, edicts and off-shoots to sell their deficient
religions.
My (cloaked) "onslaught"
March 12, 2008 - 09:32 ET by sarcasmoIf either your side or the religious side is so damn convincing, how come NPR needs my tax dollars to push them? And why should one side's idea get more dollars/time than the other if NPR is supposedly more "fair" than privately owned broadcasters?
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
There are to many people
March 12, 2008 - 18:24 ET byThere are to many people from all walks of life killing each other over the writings of men.
Indeed 'Das Capital' 'Mein Kampf" 'The Origen of the Species' and 'the Quran' come to mind immediately
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
N.P.R/taxes/bullshit
March 12, 2008 - 08:58 ET by American TaxpayerN.P.R is the most liberal left wing organization in history with the possible exception of the N.Y.T. Americans should be outraged that your tax money is being spent to fund a group of Atheist left wing liberal socalistic bastards. Christian values are banned in public schools yet I have to pay taxes to be insulted by N.P.R and their views on religion. N.P.R is a boil on the buttocks of humanity, finacually due to extremly high levels of stupidity they are bankrupt so naturaly our tax money pays the diferance. The seperation of church and state is very clear so why are we subsidizing Atheism with Tax money?
Hmmm.
March 12, 2008 - 10:54 ET by mvfreemanThe seperation of church and state is very clear so why are we subsidizing Atheism with Tax money?
We aren't, because atheism isn't a religion and has no "church".