Another nutjob

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire *sigh* If you're going to attack my intelligence and character, you might as well get my gender correct. I'm sure I've mentioned this before.

Phoenix_fire I do not think you are a dumb person.

I object to the term "magical thinker" as pejorative. You seem to imply that I have pointy ears, a Master Sword, and a pet unicorn. I assure you that this is not the case.

Of course not, I just think you prefer to answer the unknown in an unnatural way. That, to me, seems...unreal.

I do believe that people talk to God. On a far grander scale than you think. But I am absolutely not required to believe everyone who makes that claim: especially one who says stuff that is in obvious opposition to the Bible and the character and nature of God.

You are not required because the book you look to for answer tells you not to. I can see why you think the bible's supernatural explanation is different then science's explanation, but I do not see how it is different then the Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist explanation.

To address the insult of the last sentence would be to repetitiously state the obvious, so I will only ask you to cut it out.

Again, calling someone a nutjob that has conversations with god does not make sense to me, despite what the bible says. So far we have John From, JLDJ, Jesu Christ, Ariel's messenger and Mohammad advocates all professing they speak to god. All different gods with different conflicting truths and yet none of their supernatural predictions have any basis in reality.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire There is no acceptable way to prove or disprove the supernatural. Therefore, whether it speaks accurately or not about the universe is not a judgment you can make.

Please state exactly where I tried to disprove supernaturalism. I did, however, state my opinion as to which type of explanations I perfer.

Consider for a moment even trying to speculate the aspects of a higher dimension. We can make some very sparse predictions based on the next dimension's tangent to our own, but C will always be beyond our capability to determine insofar as we are relegated to the third dimension.

Eighty years ago humans were unaware of galaxies and now we are mapping out 12 billion lights years of our universe. A hundred years ago humans had no clue how light and atoms worked together and now scientists are tracking molecular reactions inside cells. You simply can not compare supernaturalism to science. When was the last time supernaturalism was used to explain stuff?

The spirit is far more complicated than this. In this respect, one may say that science is far more narrow than faith.

The spirit doesn't do much, it only gives people hope. A hope based on statistics and luck.

___________________________________________ I believe that science and faith are not incompatible. Just because someone has a competing theory, that does not denote anything sinister on their part. You are simply irritated because faith will not give up and call itself impractical as you would like. I also believe that you have misused the term "morals". The way you have used it is entirely out of context. Believing something and trying to justify it does not show a lack of morality. ____________________________________________

Beliefs are real neat, cherish them my friend, but do not speak them as the truth and try to justify them. Muslim vs Christians, all day baby!

There is far more to be known of the human mind than mere physiology can reveal, whether you accept evolution or not. Evolution really doesn't say a whole lot about human nature...just as my eye color or height would not really tell you a whole lot about who I am. ____________________________________________

Biology is not the only subject that explains Evolution. Subjects like psychology, archeology, and chemistry all present facts to back up the theory of evolution.

Believing in the supernatural is not dishonest. If, however, you wish to take that road, I would posit that NOT believing in the supernatural is also dishonest. By your reckoning, the only state of true honesty would be agnosticism.

Not believing in the supernatural is a logical statement based your contentions that humans do not know. You are right, if humans want to believe in the supernatural because they can not know or will not know then it would be logical to believe in all supernatural explanations. Ironically, it would be irrational to believe in only one set of supernatural explanations and reject all the other supernatural explanations. I have been saying this for the last couple of weeks, but if you are unwilling to examine the supernatural constructs that you reject then you are practicing a double standard.

Your supposition that people of faith must believe in all faiths is ridiculously flawed. It would be equivalent to saying that to be a scientist, you have to accept all scientific theories...from the four humors to concentric spheres with fixed stars.

it is about backing up explanations with evidence that can be tested and observed. It is about seeing how well explanations result in further discoveries. You read all scientific explanations and choose which one explains reality the best and which one is consistent with other theories. Time and hard work will ultimately show which explanation is the best, yet this is not to say a new and better explanation will arrive down the road either.

Obviously the search for any truth requires accepting some things and rejecting others.

:(

Quote by: rez Science prefers the explanation that can be observed, and replicated for testing. This explanation may result in new and helpful discoveries. One explanation should be consistent with other observed and tested explanations as well. Finally, all explanations require critical thought, questions, and most importantly - honesty.

I should of been a little more articulate. Science has no problem finding new and better explanations and throwing out others too. Science makes no assertions about truth, therefore, this does not really apply to anything.

Actually, it's their belief that they should destroy all other religions and that everyone on earth will end up bowing to our friend, Jose. Check the link.

In the words of our Christian president, these people are all "evil doers".

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Fonceai None of the "major" religions are even comparable to that kind of unoriginality.

Based on readings of what is available of the competing religions of some 3-4000 years ago to what are today "major" religions, I would have to disagree. Major portions of the Old Testament were taken from neighboring religions in the Middle East. The New Testament is a major hack job on the "prophecies" of the Old Testament. And, as far as I can tell, the Koran rips off both.

These have all been discussed within these forums, at length.

Now, what were you saying about originality?

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yes, all the religions borrowed extensively from each other, considering they're all based upon each other.

[Fonceai]

Look closely again at my own words.

I simply stated that the major religions are not comparable to the unoriginality of JLDJ.

I never stated that the majors were original.

I'm very careful, and fully aware, of the words I was using.

I suggest that JLDJ derives his entire belief system from on a small handful of aspects of one specific religion, whereas the similarities of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all derive from common truths thousands of years ago.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Ahh, well then Bravo, that's the problem with new religions, they rarely come from a line of wisdom such as the great religions have come from, they are one dimensional and focus on the silly outer things of each religion.

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary that's the problem with new religions, they rarely come from a line of wisdom such as the great religions have come from, they are one dimensional and focus on the silly outer things of each religion.

Explain to us how the religions invented thousands of years ago aren't.

[Fonceai]

Since I'm the one who said it in the first place, I'll offer an answer.

The new stuff is based on a single aspect of a single religion.

The "majors" are much larger in scope and derivation. They aren't based on a single number and word being different in meaning. They have much deeper significance.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exactly, this guy ignores the wisdom found in other religions and takes a narrow slice of one religion, christianity.

[Zhavric]

Why are you claiming there is wisdom in ANY religion new or old? That's what Rez is getting at. The merit you place on older religions is based on what exactly? That they're older?

[Gods_Mercenary]

That they take the collective wisdom of thousands of years and are universal, taking in countless culture's values and advice, I believe that your theory on religions is that they pass on memes, if so, limiting the scope and history of religion limits the amount and universality of the memes.

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary That they take the collective wisdom of thousands of years and are universal, taking in countless culture's values and advice,

haha and deny that they do such a thing.

I believe that your theory on religions is that they pass on memes, if so, limiting the scope and history of religion limits the amount and universality of the memes.

Much of religious tradition invented thousands of years ago is irrelevant to modern society. The golden rule no longer applies. It is time to make way for the Platinum Rule: "treat others the way they want to be treated."

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, I want you to give me all your money, according to your own rule, you should. Your platinum rule is even more irrelevant.

Why does the golden rule no longer apply, human nature has not changed, we all want about the same things. Not to mention that going up to every person and asking them how they'd like to be treated would be hard.

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Well, I want you to give me all your money, according to your own rule, you should. Your platinum rule is even more irrelevant.

The platinum rule inquires the theories of others, but it does not mean you must fully submit to others. This rule is more about trying to understand what people want. It is a form of the golden rule, but a more evolved version.
Religion was a good way to explain reality at a time when humans did not know much - when memes were just beginning to accumulate. The funny thing is most of the world consider these primitive memes as a legitimate way to view and explain reality.

Human nature has changed.

In a world with more people and new knowledge, communication has become a more complex endeavor.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Human nature cannot change, at least not in as short a time as you are claiming, we could evolve different tendencies, but it would take millions of years. We have learned and rejected old supersstitions, that is all. Why should I care what other people want if I'm gonna blow them off anyway, far better to treat them with compassion as I wish to be treated.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary That they take the collective wisdom of thousands of years and are universal, taking in countless culture's values and advice,

What religion are you talking about? Certainly not Christianity.

"Your religion (upon which your culture is based) is WRONG and you have to learn to be Christians or you're going to hell."

I believe that your theory on religions is that they pass on memes,

No. Religion IS a meme. Christianity is an abusive meme because it A) represents itself as true when it's demonstrably false B) can be used to swing the will of people to do things they wouldn't normally do*.

Point being, it's silly to dismiss modern religions while giving credence to older ones. A lie repeated without error over thousands of years is still a lie.

* Like voting people into office who screw them... murder abortion doctors... burn witches... etc.

[Gods_Mercenary]

People kill people with or without the help of religion, we are a brutal species, killing is one of our greatest natural talents.By the way, many christians,maybe most, do not believe that other religions are invalid, it is, as far as i know, catholic dogma that all the major religions are legitimate attempts to find God and are good and God inspired.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary People kill people with or without the help of religion, we are a brutal species, killing is one of our greatest natural talents.

Straw man.

I do not hold the stance religion is the source of all murder. I hold the stance religion can be used to manipulate the will of people into doing things they wouldn't normally do... like strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up women & children.

[Gods_Mercenary]

So does the concept of family and the nation, yet you are not espousing their destruction. I can think of a host of things that inspire people to kill others, including human nature. Religion is not the cause of this abnormal and destructive behavior, it is the outlet.

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary many christians,maybe most, do not believe that other religions are invalid, it is catholic dogma that all the major religions are legitimate attempts to find God and are good and God inspired.

Seems as though Catholics do make up most of the Christians in this country. However, Catholics are the most liberal in their beliefs toward the Christian god. I see Catholics as weekend worshipers (I was one of them for 16 years) and really do not even view them as religious as other Christians. Baptists, the second largest Christian worshipers in America do think that other religions are invalid. Then of course you have the Pentecostal and Evangelical movement within America that sadly actually vote in Presidential elections. I mean, we have Ted Haggard speaking to Bush and his advisor's on ever Monday (that was before he was caught with a male prostitute and drugs.)

The point is, all religious worshipers think reality can be explained by supernatural constructs. Of course, Catholics update their beliefs as more and more explanations contradict the Bible, but most Christians deny Catholicism anyway.