|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 16, 2023 0:44:09 GMT
Oh, it's 100% a rational argument (I don't actually find it a particularly convincing one but that's kinda irrelevant). But it presupposes the existence of this yearning for the transcendent. My theory is that unless you possess this yearning to a sufficient degree, you'll never actually be religious, even if you were presented with a completely knockdown argument for the existence of God. You might admit he exists, but you wouldn't worship him.
So atheists admit God exists but just don't worship Him?
Than he/she would not be an atheist, he/she would be a gnostic.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 16, 2023 10:43:45 GMT
Oh, it's 100% a rational argument (I don't actually find it a particularly convincing one but that's kinda irrelevant). But it presupposes the existence of this yearning for the transcendent. My theory is that unless you possess this yearning to a sufficient degree, you'll never actually be religious, even if you were presented with a completely knockdown argument for the existence of God. You might admit he exists, but you wouldn't worship him.
So atheists admit God exists but just don't worship Him?
No, they're atheists because they don't believe in God. What I mean is even if you could present an atheist with clear proof that God exists, they probably wouldn't feel any devotion to him. I suppose they'd become essentially deists rather than theists. If you look at the history of deism, it seems to have been at its peak shortly before On t he Origin of Species. Pre-Darwin, educated types felt no devotion towards God but couldn't explain the complexities of life without an intelligent designer - so they were deists. Once a convincing natural explanation for these complexities was put forward, deism gradually faded away into atheism.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 16, 2023 10:48:11 GMT
Oh, it's an urge now? Like an itch that must be scratched? Ok, maybe 'longing' might be a better term. Basically that desire for the transcendent Lewis talks about. I suppose it depends how you see salvation. If you see it as getting to go to a nice place when you die, I agree that I can't see why a good God would deny that to those who lack the capacity. If however you see salvation as having a close relationship with God, it's difficult to see how one who lacks that capacity could ever have such a relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 17, 2023 14:39:22 GMT
In other words, there are neither facts nor evidence to back it up. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. Ah, the Donald Trump approach: Rather than present a good rebuttal, simply insult those with an opposing view.
Religion isn't about beliefs; religion is about power, and mind control. (also $$$ for people like Kenneth Copeland)
Wrong. Religion is precisely about belief. Religion is a form of culture centered upon the worship Of God or gods. Yes, there are plenty of people who take advantage of religious belief, but, that is the very nature of human beings: To try to have power over others, in any way possible, & using religious belief is only just one example. Yes, for the hoi polloi sitting in the pews, religion is about belief. Why do they believe? Was it some mystical force or supernatural voice that told them? Did they see conclusive evidence? No, it was indoctrination. It was what they were told to believe by their priest/rabbi/GoverningBody/Bible/Qur’an/KenCopeland. Then when they returned to their place of worship, they were retold, and then retold, retold, retold, and RETOLD the same God-love-you story each week (and don’t forget to tithe). As Elmer Gantry said, “People everywhere are the same in one thing: They’re all afraid to die.” It’s the promise of an afterlife that keeps ‘em coming back. What we have here is the illusory truth effect: the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. Just look at the number of believers that stormed the Capital after hearing Trump’s “Stop the steal” message for eight weeks. How many of them still believe that the election was stolen? Is Kenneth Copeland doing all this for the love of his followers? No, he’s doing it for the power, control, and money that his followers provide. So I reiterate, religion is about power and control (and money). And that power is gained by persuading you to believe the stories that are told each week. (Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it even more because they hear the same message three times a week).
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Nov 17, 2023 15:41:21 GMT
Wrong. Religion is precisely about belief. Religion is a form of culture centered upon the worship Of God or gods. Yes, there are plenty of people who take advantage of religious belief, but, that is the very nature of human beings: To try to have power over others, in any way possible, & using religious belief is only just one example. Yes, for the hoi polloi sitting in the pews, religion is about belief. Why do they believe? Was it some mystical force or supernatural voice that told them? Did they see conclusive evidence? No, it was indoctrination. It was what they were told to believe by their priest/rabbi/GoverningBody/Bible/Qur’an/KenCopeland. Then when they returned to their place of worship, they were retold, and then retold, retold, retold, and RETOLD the same God-love-you story each week (and don’t forget to tithe). As Elmer Gantry said, “People everywhere are the same in one thing: They’re all afraid to die.” It’s the promise of an afterlife that keeps ‘em coming back. What we have here is the illusory truth effect: the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. Just look at the number of believers that stormed the Capital after hearing Trump’s “Stop the steal” message for eight weeks. How many of them still believe that the election was stolen? Is Kenneth Copeland doing all this for the love of his followers? No, he’s doing it for the power, control, and money that his followers provide. So I reiterate, religion is about power and control (and money). And that power is gained by persuading you to believe the stories that are told each week. (Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it even more because they hear the same message three times a week). People study the scriptures of their own religions for themselves. They also learn further & further into the faith, & go out & practice it in which ever capacity that they are able to, whether it is simply praying or meditating, or volunteering one's own time at a charity or for a worthy cause. Kenneth Copeland is a prime example of why I said the following: Your example of Donald Trump arousing people to storm the Capital of the USA a few years ago, after he lost a second term as president is just another example of what I said regarding the nature of human beings trying to have power over others, in anyway possible. In the case of Trump, politics is an example.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 24, 2023 0:09:31 GMT
Do you think the "RNA soup" is ever going to do anything even remotely like assembling life? It has not begun. There is in fact no agency in "science" that can assemble life from lifeless matter. That is obvious to intelligent people. Yet there are some people who do not have sufficient mental capacity to see that. Have you been called "stupid"? That would not be surprising. If you want people to stop calling you stupid you need to develop better arguments. We don't. That sounds like the Argument from Incredulity: you can't (or refuse) to believe something so it must not be true (or even possible). Or, this could be the God-of-the-Gaps argument: "I don't know, so it must be God". The problem that you have is that sooner-or-later, science comes along and closes the gap. Six hundred years ago, self-proclaimed intelligent people, such as yourself, claimed that the planet we live on was the center of the universe. These people were just as sure of their beliefs as you are, today. Today, I'll bet that a substantial number of self-proclaimed intelligent people, such as yourself, still don't believe in evolution because it's easier to say, "God did it". If only God can create life, perhaps a sanctimonious person, such as yourself, could explain why God created the Covid virus that killed about three million people. That may have been more deaths than that flood in the Bible. Did God creat the variola virus (smallpox) with the intent of killing about one third of those that became infected? Why did God give scientists the ability to eradicate that virus? I am immune to the fact that you keep insulting me and calling me stupid. It's just your way of not presenting any evidence to support your beliefs. Perhaps you can support, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". How could you possible believe that. No human was around to write it down. Hell, there were no life forms at all. What was God doing before he created the earth? If he was doing anything, then earth's creation was not THE beginning. I could name dozens of other inconsistencies in your Bible, but you'd never explain them because you are unable (and it's easier just to call me stupid).
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2023 19:15:11 GMT
Do you think the "RNA soup" is ever going to do anything even remotely like assembling life? It has not begun. There is in fact no agency in "science" that can assemble life from lifeless matter. That is obvious to intelligent people. Yet there are some people who do not have sufficient mental capacity to see that. Have you been called "stupid"? That would not be surprising. If you want people to stop calling you stupid you need to develop better arguments. We don't. That sounds like the Argument from Incredulity: you can't (or refuse) to believe something so it must not be true (or even possible). Or, this could be the God-of-the-Gaps argument: "I don't know, so it must be God". The problem that you have is that sooner-or-later, science comes along and closes the gap. Despite his superior mental capacity and never being called stupid, Arlon has clearly not heard about, or chooses to ignore, the classic Miller Urey experiment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment The experiments showed that simple organic compounds of building blocks of proteins and other macromolecules can be formed from gases with the addition of energy, that is thereby demonstrating that chemical evolution - the formation of complex chemicals from simple ones - is possible. T . Most researchers are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world. Recent data from comparative genomics, structural biology and traditional biochemistry have revealed that several of these enzymatic activities have even appeared independently more than once. An up to date outline of issues, the overall debate and recent science can be found here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/#:~:text=We%20are%20reasonably%20sure%20now,in%20an%20RNA%2Fprotein%20world. While not conclusive, it is overall more persuasive for many as the start and progression of things than the idea that life was created (over a period which Arlon is oddly unable, or unwilling, to suggest) by an unproven, alleged supernatural - moreover making something necessarily out of nothing since all that existed before was itself. A creator-designer indeed who did such a good job that 99% of all life forms that have ever existed are now, er, extinct. All of which, as Rodney Farber says, requires a great willingness to believe without evidence.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2023 20:07:19 GMT
Perhaps [Arlon] can support, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". How could you possible believe that. No human was around to write it down. Hell, there were no life forms at all. What was God doing before he created the earth? If he was doing anything, then earth's creation was not THE beginning. No point in asking him this one, surely. The verse implies that such a claim is to be taken literally, when Arlon has lately assured us that, er, "religion cannot be taken literally".
|
|